Re: Some minor edits

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> [186] X.509 should be replaced by X.500
>>
>>
>> I'm confused here. The xmlsig spec states "X.509 distinguished names". I
>> wonder if X.509v3 redefined what is a DN, e.g., simplifying it from the
>> X.500 definition.  Looking on the web, it seems some people say X.509 DN
>> and other people X.500 DN.
>> I don't have the X.509v3 spec. here right now. Could you verify before I
>> make the change? If it's X.500, then that's what it will be.
> 
> 
> DistinguishedName is the same in both. Strictly this is defined
> by X.500, but practically, its only really used by X.509, at
> least as far as we care, therefore I'd just about prefer the
> X.509 reference.
> 
> S.

Given that XML-SIG usage of X.509 DN, let's go with X.509.

- Vamsi