On 2/28/19 4:08 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >> 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. > That works for me as well, subject to WG rough consensus, of course, except that header field names can't contain spaces, so I would change it to "TLS-Required: no".
-Jim _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
