Re: Discussion of 6.1 for LC June

On 2008-03-21 07:51:53 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

>> So, I'd suggest that the section on AA certificates asserts
>> this property as a condition of AA-ness, spells out the
>> sequence of attributes to use for deriving the human readable
>> name, and we then refer back to that for the identity signal
>> content.

> Please draft some text for the discussion on Wed (I'd like to put
> this whole thing on the agenda then). Or did you do that already
> in your updates? 

The current text reads as follows:

    <p>It is expected that it will generally be the case that Issuer
    and Subject information included in AACs is intended to be
    displayed to users.</p>

That's *very* soft.

Instead, I'd propose to say this instead, also based on Yngve's
message as quoted in [1]:

	<p>To derive a human-readable name from an AAC, user agents
	MUST use the first of the following fields that is human-readable:</p>
	
	<olist>
	<item>the Subject's Common Name (CN) attribute;</item>

Yngve, Stephen how does one properly deal with the use of CN to hold
a domain name?  Is the type (IA5String) the right distinguisher here?

	<item>the Subject's Organizational Unit (OU) attribute, in
	combination with its Location (L) attribute;</item>
	<item>the Subject's Organization (O) attribute.</item>
	</olist>

	<p>All Augmented Assurance Certificates MUST include
	information that lets this algorithm terminate successfully,
	i.e., return human-readable information.</p>
	
Then, in 6.1, change

	"the Subject field's Organization attribute, if present"

to:

	"human-readable information about the certificate subject,
	derived as specified in <specref ref="sec-evcert"/>."

I'm tentatively making these changes to the editor's draft.

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2008Mar/0142.html

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 23:42:13 UTC