> On Dec 9, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Arvel Hathcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +1. I'm for keeping this proposal as simple as possible.
The result would be substantial lack of orthogonality, with multiple
overlapping specifications, that would then be able to conflict with
each other.
What would (for example) be the result if a client requested both
the REQUIRETLS and a separate MAYTLS feature?
Adding the converse feature does not noticeably complicate this
draft, it merely makes it feature complete, and would provide
the feature that more users would actually want more of the
time.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
