Re: draft-thomson-httpbis-cant

On 22 October 2014 09:07, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
>> The matching looks the simplest possible: Raw opaque
>> binary blob (to be compared using memcmp()) Base64url
>> encoded.
> Matching isn't the problem here, but rather en/de-coding
> and presentation. Its worth being less flexible than is
> allowed by X.500 names.

I considered using RFC 4514 (I think that's right), but was convinced
to use a direct binary translation by someone.

The reasoning was simple: 1) it's much, much easier to do and 2) the
use case has been proven to be of marginal use at best (there was the
suggestion that it might be deprecated from day zero), so lavishing
attention on it wasn't seen as particularly productive.  I'm happy to
adjust as necessary and use whatever people want to do.

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 18:27:42 UTC