Hi Viktor,
On 22/03/2016 16:09, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:10:57AM +0100, Daniel Margolis wrote:
Thanks for the feedback to both of you. I don't disagree; I think Viktor
makes a very solid point in favor of simplicity. In addition, a report-only
protocol could be extended to support arbitrary error reporting; an
out-of-band (e.g. HTTP) channel to share delivery failures between domains
strikes me as useful in the general case.
Separately, because we're already assuming providers (both sending and
receiving) make a choice on implementing DANE and/or webPKI, I don't think
actually splitting the two makes it any more or less complex to implement,
or should discourage adoption of one or the other mechanism.
So I would say I'm feeling a bit in favor of Viktor's suggestion, but I'd
like to chat a bit more with my co-authors and think about it first. ;)
Great. One more question. I see that there are parallel
non-overlapping threads on this proposal on tha UTA and IETF-SMTP
lists. Is either the "primary" forum for discussing this proposal?
Should people be encouraged to cross-post? Should the IETF-SMTP
users who want to discuss it be encouraged to shift the discussion
here?
I think so, this document is within the UTA charter (or at least very
close to it).
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
