Re: [Uta] Require TLS=NO is very much needed

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

On 2017-11-17 03:55, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 8:56 PM, Leif Johansson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> The sense of the room in Singapore was that the semantics
>> of REQUIRETLS=NO was sufficiently different from REQUIRETLS
>> that it would be better to move it to a separate document.
>> It was suggested that REQUIRETLS=NO might be better
>> represented as a message header even.
> 
> The room was not populated by enough folks with deep operational
> experience in email, especially operational experience with
> email transport security policy.

I will set this aside for now. I encourage everyone to express
their opinions on this topic. Right now the consensus is not
clear either way.

> 
> As I pointed out in another message, BOTH REQUIRETLS=YES
> *and* REQUIRETLS=NO need to be encapsulated in headers, but
> the YES case *also* needs an ESMTP extension, while the
> NO case does not.  It makes sense to define both in the
> same document.
> 
>> In any case it is not clear to me that there is or ever was
>> consensus to keep this feature /in its current form/ in the
>> REQUIRETLS draft.
> 
> Consensus can yet be achieved after more discussion with
> folks getting a chance to think through the issues more deeply.

Indeed.

My response to your message was meant to encourage discussion!

	Cheers Leif