John Lewis wrote: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02 > > They only thing that jumps at me is the name. It doesn't follow rfc > norms.
Naming is fine because it's still only a Internet draft and not an RFC. > I am having a really hard time finding anyone who says that the standard > is bad. It's simply not finished. After LDAPcon 2015 there was an attempt to resurrect ietf-ldapext WG and one of the possible work items would be to get this to RFC status. If you're eager to push this you should thoroughly review the discussions on the still functional ietf-ldapext mailing list before: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ldapext/ Ciao, Michael.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
