I support adoption of this document as long as the WG version does not list current implementations by name. As Mike StJohns points out, listing current methods in a long-lived RFC has significant problems, and it doesn't help the future reader decide what they want to do. It is still fine to call this a "survey".
I would also like to see a more specific proposal at the top of the document (_name and TXT) instead of making the reader wade through the survey. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
