On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:31:32AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:27 AM Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> > wrote: > > | [quotes from RFC8461 elided] > > > > How does this not allow a sending MTA to... not honor MTA-STS? > > It's allowed to not *generally* honor STS, but this text does not have any > provision for just ignoring it for some messages. Any other reading seems > extremely strained.
RFC8461 does not say "generally honoring MTA-STS". Where do you get that? Did I miss something? The word certainly does not appear. Any reading of RFC8461 where you insert this missing "generally" looks strained to me. How would an implementor reading the RFC get that? Are they expected to look in the archives of this and other threads to find that the IESG decided that this absent "generally" was there? Even if RFC8461 *did* say that, so what. There's no normative definition of "generally honoring MTA-STS" there. Even if RFC8461 *did* say that and had a normative definition of "generally honoring MTA-STS", we could just update it. If not even consider it an erratum (it would have been an error, IMO). Nico -- _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
