On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:09:33PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: > I think Jim's explanation makes sense -- even if it's not required, you can > still do best-effort -- and captures the desired semantics exactly right. I > hope the SecAD's will clear that discuss item.
To be clear: I don't have a particular problem with the specific mechanisms and behavior that let a sender indicate an intent to knowingly send messages that may not receive full TLS protection. My objection is more on the terminology used to describe the behavior, and the process by which the change in behavior of existing protocols is specified. -Benjamin _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
