Re: [Uta] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On May 8, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Daniel Margolis wrote: > > I don't want to revisit anything unless it's going to be revisited for the > last time, so I want some guidance from chairs here on how to finalize a > resolution on this (one way or another). Agreed. >> Yes, it boils down to whether

Re: [Uta] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 2018-05-08 18:30, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > >> On May 8, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Daniel Margolis wrote: >> >> I don't want to revisit anything unless it's going to be revisited for the >> last time, so I want some guidance from chairs here on how to finalize a >> resolution on this (one way or

Re: [Uta] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On May 8, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Leif Johansson wrote: > > It sounds like you guys agree at least. Does this reflect WG consensus > on this point? For the record, I agree that the specification *could* be changed along the lines discussed. I am not actively advocating for the change. --

Re: [Uta] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 2018-05-08 18:44, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > >> On May 8, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Leif Johansson wrote: >> >> It sounds like you guys agree at least. Does this reflect WG consensus >> on this point? > > For the record, I agree that the specification *could* be changed along > the lines discussed.

Re: [Uta] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On May 8, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Leif Johansson wrote: > >> For the record, I agree that the specification *could* be changed along >> the lines discussed. I am not actively advocating for the change. > > but you're not violently opposed either? Not violently opposed, provided the text makes t

Re: [Uta] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 2018-05-08 19:00, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > >> On May 8, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Leif Johansson wrote: >> >>> For the record, I agree that the specification *could* be changed along >>> the lines discussed. I am not actively advocating for the change. >> >> but you're not violently opposed eithe

[Uta] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: (with DISCUSS)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-17: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.