Change:
6. <del> The usage of id-kp-documentSigning EKU is to provide an alternative to id-kp-emailProtection being used for non-email purposes and id-kp- codeSigning being used to sign objects other than binary code.  This </del> <ins> The usage of id-kp-documentSigning EKU intends to prevent id-kp- emailProtection from being used for purposes other than email and id- kp-codeSigning used to sign objects other than binary codes.  This </ins> EKU does not introduce new security risks but instead reduces existing security risks by providing means to separate other EKUs used for communication protocols namely, TLS or S/MIME etc. in order to minimize the risk of cross protocol attacks. To reduce the risk of specific cross protocol attacks, the relying <del> party or relying party software may additionally prohibit use of </del> <ins> party or relying party software may additionaly prohibit use of </ins> specific combination of EKUs. While a specific protocol or signing scheme may choose to come up <del> with their own EKU, some may not have significant motive or resources to set up and manage their own EKU.  This general document signing </del> <ins> with their own EKU, some may not have significant motive or resource to set up and manage thier own EKU.  This general document signing </ins> EKU may be used as a stop gap for those that intend to set up their own EKU or those who do not intend to set up an EKU but still would <del> like to distinguish document signing from other usages. </del> <ins> like to distinguish from other usage. </ins> Introduction of this id-kp-documentSigning EKU value does not introduce any new security or privacy concerns.

Discussion:
This also made the references to RFCs 7229 and 8358 Informative references, as was approved by in PR. More importantly, neither of these refs are required for implementation. This also changes the line breaks in the .md hence it looks like a lot more changes than there really are. Done to aid readability. NAME please double check that the new formatting in s4 works. It seemed to the me that the paragraphs after "2." were part of the numbered item so I indented them. The .md will result in the following .txt: If there are restrictions set for the replying party and relying party software, proceed as following. Each Restriction on the EKUs can be "Excluded EKU" or "Permitted EKU" and handled. The procedure is intended to permit or prohibit presence of a certain EKU or complete absence of EKUs. It is outside the scope of this document, but the relying party can permit or prohibit conbinations of EKU. A consideration on prohibiting combination of EKUs is described in the security consideration section of this document. Excluded EKUs procedure: "Excluded EKU" is an EKU which the relying party or the relying party software prohibits. Examples of "Excluded EKU" are, presence of anyEKU or complete absence of EKU extension on a certificate. If an EKU of the certificate meets the conditions set by the "Excluded EKU" restriction, the relying party or the relying party software rejects the certificate. Permitted EKU procedure: "Permitted EKU" is an EKU which the relying party or the relying party software accepts. Examples of "Permitted EKU" are, presence of this general document signing EKU and/or protocol specific document signing-type EKUs. If an EKU of the certificate meets the condition set by a "Permitted EKU" restriction, the certificate is acceptable. Otherwise, relying party or the relying party software rejects the certificate. When a single software has capability to process various data formats, the software may choose to make the excluded and permitted decisions separately in accordance with the format it is handling (e.g. text, pdf, etc).

Also
Section 4: s/prohibit conbinations/xxclude combinations/ Section 4: s/anyEKU/anyExtendedKeyUsage/ Section 6: s/none-email purposes/purposes other than email/ Note the comment about the abstract was addressed via .
I-D Nits complains about: one line being too long: the 2nd line of the ASN.1 module the abstract containing a reference: [RFC5280]
approved. after building into txt, it seems same in my environment also.