On 7 June 2016 at 20:59, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, > > I disagree with the suggestion to relegate all "spam" control mechanisms to > per-log, locally-determined controls. This is another example of 6269-bis > not being written as a standard, but as just a set of guidelines. Allowing > another way for logs to behave in a fashion that is not predictable by log > clients, > except, perhaps, by trial and error, is not, IMHO, a good idea. >
The point here is to allow logs to be more liberal in what they accept, which is surely a benefit? Logs should still be required to accept well-formed chains to known roots, that I definitely agree with. > > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans >
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
