Other than that, my one remaining question is whether or not RIPEM is really
an
alternative to PEM that's always going to be a distinct entity in its own
right. If so, specification of what this alternative looks like (either in
another RFC or in some document an RFC can reference) is an essential part of
defining application/ripem adequately. If not, then why not just use
multipart/pem and application/pem?
For this, I will wait until Mark Riordan returns and responds. The only reason
I brought this
up is because RIPEM is currently far from being compatible with PEM (although
RIPEM does use
the standard PEM boundaries!) and because Mark's User's Guide in its
instructions for use with
ELM's MIME features makes reference to application/ripem.
Thanks for the education on MIME so far!
-Ray