> > On Dec 9, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Arvel Hathcock <ar...@thehathcocks.com> wrote: > > > > +1. I'm for keeping this proposal as simple as possible.
> The result would be substantial lack of orthogonality, with multiple > overlapping specifications, that would then be able to conflict with > each other. > What would (for example) be the result if a client requested both > the REQUIRETLS and a separate MAYTLS feature? > Adding the converse feature does not noticeably complicate this > draft, it merely makes it feature complete, and would provide > the feature that more users would actually want more of the > time. I'm in complete agreement with Viktor here. This is a case of complification masquerading as simplicity. Ned _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta