On 05/04/17 16:46, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > >> On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Jeremy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The example in Appendix 9 > > All I see is "Section 10, Appendix 1" and "Section 11, Appendix 2". > What is "Appendix 9"?
Apologies. Section 9, being Appendix 2. >> CNAME indirections should be explicitly discussed >> (I'd like them permitted). > > Where would you like to see CNAMEs permitted? Perhaps Section 3, initial paragraph. > [ Oh, and by the way, it seems the authors have concluded that > JSON policy has rough consensus. I am not sure that's accurate, > or at least don't think that accurately represents MTA implementors. > > Where do you stand on the JSON issue? I am not looking forward to > adding a JSON parser to Postfix, or requiring all the O/S platforms > to provide a common C JSON API (is there one that is widely available) > as a pre-requisite for installing Postfix. ] I do not intend to add a JSON parser to Exim, and would make my anti-bloat views known to any of the other Exim developers. [I have the same views on any need for https, cf. MTA-STS] However, I don't think using JSON for the reports defined by this draft would require an MTA-based parser. -- Cheers, Jeremy _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
