Thus, I ask that
you be prepared to present the revisions, and the underlying
rationale, at next week's meeting, but I do not expect to call for a
vote on the I-D at that time.
I will be prepared to discuss the changes to the documents, although I'm
not expecting any discussion. All changes except one were discussed and
approved at the last PEM WG meeting. The exception is the removal of
the PGP identifier.
At the last meeting several people questioned the motivation for the
identifier. Since the last meeting, after further consultation with the
proponents of the identifier, it was agreed that PGP should make use of
the security multiparts framework and define its own control information
body parts. So, we removed it from the document.
Since there is no new material to review, I question your motivation to
delay calling for a vote until late December or January, especially
considering that an implementation already exists.
Jim
binGi7bwQ10Zh.bin
Description: application/pem-signature