Are you suggesting that we add a new Received header field clause for recording TLS SNI (instead of [ab]using BY)?
To circle back to the original question, I am not opposed in principle to adding a new SNI clause. But since it requires a published experimental or standards track RFC, that is a lot of work for something that may turn out not to be useful.
That why's I'll be using the BY name for now, and once we have experience with MTA-STS we'll have a better idea of what if anything else we should do.
Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
