On 2017-11-17 01:01, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> People are forgetting that especially smaller sites
> that implement STS or DANE don't always have the
> operational discipline to keep these working. I
> have considerable evidence to support this claim.
>
> A sender with urgent non-sensitive messages may well
> reasonably want to see the message delivered despite
> such failures. Indeed, this is typically the right
> thing to do with failure reports!
>
> At present, the sender address I use to send DANE
> failure notices is statically exempted from enforcing
> DANE policy (rather than message by message).
>
The sense of the room in Singapore was that the semantics
of REQUIRETLS=NO was sufficiently different from REQUIRETLS
that it would be better to move it to a separate document.
It was suggested that REQUIRETLS=NO might be better
represented as a message header even.
In any case it is not clear to me that there is or ever was
consensus to keep this feature /in its current form/ in the
REQUIRETLS draft.
As always, discussions on the list will determine this but
barring clear support for keeping the feature in the draft
we need to find another form for this feature.
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
