- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:50:43 +1000
- To: olli.immonen@nokia.com, hlockhar@bea.com, public-appformats@w3.org, member-xmlsec-maintwg-request@w3.org
> > So, stating conformance to [X509v3] does not imply that that only v3 > would be allowed. That was my exactly my intention when referencing [X509v3] in the spec. Should the spec recommend one particular version of X509 certs? Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:51:16 UTC