W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: X509SubjectName and binary values

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:03:39 -0500
Message-Id: <200201240003.TAA23897@tux.w3.org>
To: "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>, "Herry" <herrykoh@yahoo.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Wednesday 23 January 2002 03:36, Gregor Karlinger wrote:
> If your application needs to support Proposed Rec, then
> your example DName should be "My\20Name".
>
> However it is likely that this will change in the Rec.
> Please also follow the current discussion on clarifying
> the encoding of DNames according to XMLDSIG [1],[2],[3],
> [4] and its reflection in section 4.4.4.1 of the current
> working document [5].

As an update, there hasn't been any movement on the list for substantive 
tweaks. So what I think we are still looking at is as it is specified in 
[5]. I'm still hoping we can squeeze the purely editorial clarification 
(correcting the statement that says it's RFC2253 conformant and creating 
its own little subheading) into the resulting Proposed Standard. If not, 
the W3C REC will have the error too but will have this quickly documented 
in the erratum.

> [5] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core

-- 

Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 19:04:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:14 GMT