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

Re: On the capability of the RFC2253 "CN=Sam"encoding form for identifying a Certificate.

From: Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:23:40 +0200
Message-ID: <466E904C.7090108@ac.upc.edu>
To: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
CC: XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>

Thanks Sean,

I would initially agree in what you mention of limiting the keywords use 
to those that appear in RFC 2253.
As for your concerns of adding recommendations, I would say that we are 
thinking in including notes for the encoding of the attribute values 
within the concerned elements, so would it not be possible to add some 
sentences describing the issue as informative text and maybe making this 
suggestion? In the end, as I said, we are already planning to introduce 
changes in the text...

Regards

Juan Carlos
> Yes, it is an issue. I think if applications are concerned with
> interoperability, they should only use the keywords defined in RFC 2253:
> CN, L, ST, O, OU, C, STREET, DC, UID and use the OID form for any other
> attributes. They should also consider using the hexadecimal enconding
> for attribute values other than PrintableString or UTF8String. But I'm
> not sure if we can add requirements, (even if they are recommendations)
> like this at this stage.
>
> --Sean
>   
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 12:23:58 GMT

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