Sead,
Extensions to PEM functionality, in terms of additional CA/PCA
services are perfectly fine and should not cause anyone to refer to
your PEM implementations as non-compliant. If there is a market for
such additional services, then it is thoroughly appropriate to offer
them. However, failure to provide the minimum PCA/CA services called
for in the RFCs, does not yield compliant implementations and the
resulting software should not be called PEM and certainly should not
be advertised as compliant. When Mark Riordan developed his software,
which didn't support certificates and was thus not really PEM, he was
nice enough to to name it RIPEM, to avoid too much confusion with
fully compliant implementations.
Steve