On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 08:24 -0800, Peter Saint Andre wrote: > Section 1.5., paragraph 8: > > These suggestions are not entirely consistent with all practices that > > are currently followed by certification authorities, client > > developers, and service providers. However, they reflect the best > > aspects of current practices and are expected to become more widely > > adopted in the coming years. > > This seems to argue that the doc should be a BCP and not a PS?
Round we go again... AIUI, the document needs to be a PS because it defines matching rules intended for incorporation into application protocol PSes. Correct? -- Matt _______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
