W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Section 4.4.4 proposed changes

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:50:42 +0200
To: Ed Simon <edsimon@xmlsec.com>
Cc: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070710085042.GW6561@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-07-09 21:20:32 -0400, Ed Simon wrote:

> In reviewing the current draft of XML Signature, I am delighted to see the
> text approach what I had suggested back in May [1] ;-)

So am I. :)

> >>>
> *	The X509IssuerSerial element, which contains an X.509 issuer
> distinguished name/serial number pair. The distinguished name SHOULD be
> represented as a string that complies with section 3 of  RFC4514 [
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#ref-LDAP-DN> LDAP-DN], 
>  
> *	The X509SubjectName element, which contains an X.509 subject
> distinguished name that SHOULD be represented as a string that complies with
> section 3 of RFC4514 [ <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#ref-LDAP-DN>
> LDAP-DN], 
> <<<
> to
> >>>
> *	The X509IssuerSerial element, which contains an X.509 issuer
> distinguished name/serial number pair. The distinguished name SHOULD be
> represented as a string that complies with <new>the rules specified in
> section "Distinguished Name Encoding"</new>, 
>  
> *	The X509SubjectName element, which contains an X.509 subject
> distinguished name that SHOULD be represented as a string that complies with
> <new>the rules specified in section "Distinguished Name Encoding"</new>
> <<<
>  
> Do others agree with the above suggested changes to 4.4.4?

Sounds useful to me.

Cheers,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 08:50:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:00 GMT