> The obstacle in the current draft was that the "NO"
> case appeared to over-complicate the ESMTP extension,
> but it is now clear that the "NO" case need not use
> the "ESMTP" extension and should be carried exclusively
> via a header. However, since the same TLS policy
> header is also needed for the "YES" case (but with
> a slightly different payload), the same draft should
> specify both. We should not force these to be separate
> just to hurry the "YES" case out the door. Let's do
> this right.
I'm with Viktor on this one. Having two documents where only one is
needed will not only create redundant material that needs to be kept
in sync, it's more stuff people implementing this have to read.
This is already too complicated and spread over too many specifications. Let's
please not make it more so.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
