> > On Dec 9, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Arvel Hathcock <ar...@thehathcocks.com> 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.
I'm in complete agreement with Viktor here. This is a case of complification
masquerading as simplicity.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
