On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Rob Stradling <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21/11/17 19:33, Al Cutter wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Eran Messeri <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> [shortening subject] >> >> Two MUSTs are being discussed: >> (1) "the log MUST NOT accept any submission until it has verified ..." >> >> >> Actually it's just this one, I think the one below was included possibly >> by mistake (I mentioned to that to Rob when I spotted it on the PR). >> > > Yeah, I misunderstood which MUSTs (in section 4.2) EKR (and Al) thought > should be SHOULDs. > > I've updated the PR. This discussion is now only about whether or not > that first "MUST NOT" should be changed to "SHOULD NOT". > > From the discussion on the PR, it seems that: > - Eran and Andrew strongly prefer "MUST NOT". > - EKR wrote "this is a WG decision" and so I presume he'll accept either > "MUST NOT" or "SHOULD NOT". > I'll accept MUST NOT as long as the MUST NOT is unambiguous. I thought it was but the discussion in the PR suggests that it's not because we don't know what the lax validation exception covers. As long as you have clarity on that point then SHOULD NOT/MUST NOT is totally up to the WG. -Ekr > - Al is the sole proponent of changing it to "SHOULD NOT". > > Al, can you live with "MUST NOT"? > > -- > Rob Stradling > Senior Research & Development Scientist > COMODO - Creating Trust Online > > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans >
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
