> On Mar 19, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Gervase Markham via Public <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 17/03/17 18:02, Ryan Sleevi wrote: >> But it's not moot for relying parties or for browsers, as your >> interpretation effectively prevents any assurance of issuer-parameters >> from being useful and deployed, even if you do not wish to do so. > > I think this is the key point. I want implementations not to barf on > iodef records, even if they don't do anything with them. Therefore, it > must be required to process them. However, it is not required to act on > them. The current text, I believe, says this. I am open to better texts > saying the same thing, but I am not open to changing the requirement's > meaning.
Given that doing anything with iodef is currently a SHOULD, what is the problem if the implementation barfs on the record? If the record flags is set to critical, then issuance fails. If it is not critical, then just ignoring it is fine. _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
