On 2017-11-17 07:10, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > 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?
Yes I think thats a fine way to resolve this. My sense of the room is that there is wide support for /the idea/ but people feel that the current SMTP-focused draft becomes overly complex by having this feature in there. > >> 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
