On 2017-11-17 03:55, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 8:56 PM, Leif Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> The room was not populated by enough folks with deep operational
> experience in email, especially operational experience with
> email transport security policy.
I will set this aside for now. I encourage everyone to express
their opinions on this topic. Right now the consensus is not
clear either way.
>
> As I pointed out in another message, BOTH REQUIRETLS=YES
> *and* REQUIRETLS=NO need to be encapsulated in headers, but
> the YES case *also* needs an ESMTP extension, while the
> NO case does not. It makes sense to define both in the
> same document.
>
>> 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.
>
> Consensus can yet be achieved after more discussion with
> folks getting a chance to think through the issues more deeply.
Indeed.
My response to your message was meant to encourage discussion!
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
