Re: [Uta] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-18: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benjamin,

Thank you for your review comments!

Just a generic reply on one of them:

On 16/04/2018 16:22, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> Section 3
>
>     o  "v": This value MUST be equal to "TLSRPTv1".
>
> How about something like "This document defines version 1; other
> versions may be defined in later documents"?  Additionally, text
> later in this section aboud discarding records that do not begin
> with "v=TLSRPTv1;" and the pruned list not having exactly one
> element is not friendly to future version negotiation.
>
> On a more meta level, do we really need both versioning and extensions?
Extensions are optional to understand, while a new version would force 
the recipient to understand it. So for example if one wants to make a 
particular extension mandatory to process, the version number needs to 
be incremented.

I am not making any claims about how likely any of these are.

Best Regards,
Alexey