Change:
The signed contents of Internet-Drafts are primarily intended to be consumed by human.  To be more precise, contents are intended to be shown to human in a printable or displayable form by means of <del> services or software, rather than processed by machines.  The digital signature on the contents is to indicate to the recipient of the contents that the content has not changed since it was signed by the identity indicated as the subject of the certificate.  To validate the digital signature which is signed on contents intended to be consumed by humans, implementations MAY perform the steps below during certificate validation: </del> <ins> services or software, rather than processed by machines.  To validate the digital signature which is signed to contents intended to be consumed by human, implementations MAY perform the steps below as a certificate validation. </ins> The implementation MAY examine the Extended Key Usage value(s):

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.