W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > February 2011

WebID-ISSUE-33 (was [foaf-protocols] Webid Spec: Reference to the X.509 RFC 5280?)

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:35:50 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikVp3ks1jg1CPUE37E+R7gOUYATofa+3O7OTJL2@mail.gmail.com>
To: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruno Harbulot <Bruno.Harbulot@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] Webid Spec: Reference to the X.509 RFC 5280?
To: Akbar Hossain <akkiehossain@gmail.com>
Cc: foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org


Hi,

The PKIX spec (RFC 5280) is based on X.509, so it does repeat some of
the content of the X.509 spec and puts it into context (for a PKI).
However, the permitted values for the SAN are in the X.509 Specification.
   http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.509-200508-I/en
   (section 8.3.2.1)

Regarding Webfinger/Fingerpoint, I'm not quite sure how widespread this
is yet.

Best wishes,

Bruno.

On 13/08/2010 22:53, Akbar Hossain wrote:
> Sorry -  I should have said why I was looking for it!
>
> I was reading thru http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.6
>
> Which I thought was the definition of the permitted values within the
> Subject Alternative Name (SAN)
>
> I guess this is a possible reference too.
>
>
http://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/x509v3_config.html#Subject_Alternative_Name_
>
> I was thinking that a section of the spec could be structured as a
> table with the permitted entries in SAN
> and the possible ways to deference the agent details.
>
> We dont need to (or cant) specify all but it would be easy to
> visualise how other deferencing schemes to discover the identifying
> agents profile could be added to the spec at a later stage if for
> example against email we listed webfinger and fingerpoint for example.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Bruno Harbulot
> <Bruno.Harbulot@manchester.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13/08/2010 20:53, Akbar Hossain wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Minor suggestion. Perhaps we should add a link (reference) to the X.509
RFC.
>>>
>>> I think it is here. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280
>>
>> I'm not sure if we need to. This isn't the X.509 RFC but the PKIX RFC,
>> which is exactly what we avoid to do. (The X.509 specification isn't an
>> IETF RFC.)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Bruno.
>> _______________________________________________
>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>> foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>
_______________________________________________
foaf-protocols mailing list
foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 15:46:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:22 UTC