Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> Making this experimental not make much sense to me - there is no real >> experiment here other than "will anyone use it" and that could be >> said about a large percentage of PS documents. When I read 2026, this >> looks like PS. > > I agree. If the document is standardizing what is deployed and there is > no desire to change it, then it should be Informational. Otherwise it > looks like PS. Well, folks are using it right now: http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Jabber_Email_Header I see it in the wild quite a bit, admittedly among people who may simply be experimenting with it since they are heavy users of XMPP-based instant messaging systems. So perhaps Informational is appropriate. Again, I'm not averse to designing something more general. And I think that experience with this header field may provide useful input to that process. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf