> On Feb 27, 2019, at 5:00 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not my ballot thread, but "TLS Required: no" is a LOT clearer to me. I'm not
> the target audience, but the original order screws me up every time I see it
> in a ballot e-mail.
That's a bike-shed colour I for one can happily live with, and for
the record, as a matter of english grammar, you're probably right
that it conveys the intent a bit more clearly. So I would not
stand in the way of tweaking the header name if there's consensus
around that.
The header is primarily for machine consumption, so the value is
not important so long as it is understood by all the MTAs along
the forward path. So tweaking for clarity of the description in
the RFC is fine, so long as some name or other attains consensus.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
