On 17/11/2017 09:56, Leif Johansson wrote: > 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 a participant) Maybe write a separate 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. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
