On Sep 13, 2022, at 1:33 AM, libor.peltan <libor.peltan=40nic...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > It seems interesting to me, that this RFC is single-authored, Informational > and non-WG.
There were plenty of people who helped with useful suggestions and corrections to the drafts. It is Informational because there is no single way to present the data usefully. Some people wanted very text-y presentation, others wanted more hex-ish presentation that would be more likely to be interpreted correctly. It was non-WG because I was just messing around with it. In the IETF, individually-submitted drafts have equal standing with WG RFCs, as long as they get similar levels of review, which this one did. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
