On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 8:27 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>> Beyond this SHOULD, I think we need to consider whether the caller needs
>> to be told specifically when a failure occurs for this reason. Right now
>> an implementation might return just a PERMFAIL without noting that it's
>> because
On 2/18/23 8:13 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 12:10 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
Beyond this SHOULD, I think we need to consider whether the
caller needs to be told specifically when a failure occurs for
this reason. Right now an implementation might return
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 12:10 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
> Beyond this SHOULD, I think we need to consider whether the caller needs
> to be told specifically when a failure occurs for this reason. Right now
> an implementation might return just a PERMFAIL without noting that it's
> because of
On 2/17/23 5:02 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:35 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
Currently RFC 6376 says, "Signatures MAY be considered invalid".
I think the practical effect as described in protocol terms would
be to change the MAY to SHOULD under X conditio
100% agree. If this is the path we decide to go down, we can't really change
the protocol for this. It's advice on when/why to deal with X in a particular
way. Perhaps I was overly subtle, but that's why I described it as the
practical effect. I didn't mean to suggest a protocol change.
Sco
On 2/18/23 11:52 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I think that changing this to SHOULD is the wrong approach. An
Applicability Statement might well give advice, possibly at the SHOULD
level, that goes beyond this and discusses use cases, but the base
protocol uses MAY for a good reason, and at the proto
I think that changing this to SHOULD is the wrong approach. An
Applicability Statement might well give advice, possibly at the SHOULD
level, that goes beyond this and discusses use cases, but the base
protocol uses MAY for a good reason, and at the protocol level it
should stay that way.
Barry
O
