> On Nov 17, 2017, at 2:28 AM, Leif Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
My sense is that it was just a gut reaction from an audience
not steeped in the subject matter, based on a perceived
difficulty that does not actually exist, because the "NO"
case turns out to have no footprint at the ESMTP layer.
However, both the "YES" and "NO" cases have closely related
and mutually exclusive message header footprints with similar
reasons for existence and closely related security considerations.
My take is that the vibe from the "room" arrived at a hasty
conclusion from false premises, and should be ignored. It was
premature, the draft is not yet far enough along to decide the
question at hand. First the design space needs to be more clearly
understood.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
