Re: [Uta] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-smtp-require-tls-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

On 2/28/19 4:08 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2019, at 5:00 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Not my ballot thread, but "TLS Required: no" is a LOT clearer to me. I'm not the target audience, but the original order screws me up every time I see it in a ballot e-mail. 
> That's a bike-shed colour I for one can happily live with, and for
> the record, as a matter of english grammar, you're probably right
> that it conveys the intent a bit more clearly.  So I would not
> stand in the way of tweaking the header name if there's consensus
> around that.
>
> The header is primarily for machine consumption, so the value is
> not important so long as it is understood by all the MTAs along
> the forward path.  So tweaking for clarity of the description in
> the RFC is fine, so long as some name or other attains consensus.
>
That works for me as well, subject to WG rough consensus, of course,
except that header field names can't contain spaces, so I would change
it to "TLS-Required: no".

-Jim