On 1/17/11 1:59 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > 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?
This will likely be discussed on the IESG telechat this week. However, Cullen Jennings and Robert Sparks have me convinced that PS is correct. Jeff and I discussed this with Alexey, too. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ certid mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
