- From: Juan Carlos Cruellas <cruellas@ac.upc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:23:40 +0200
- To: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
- CC: XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
Thanks Sean, I would initially agree in what you mention of limiting the keywords use to those that appear in RFC 2253. As for your concerns of adding recommendations, I would say that we are thinking in including notes for the encoding of the attribute values within the concerned elements, so would it not be possible to add some sentences describing the issue as informative text and maybe making this suggestion? In the end, as I said, we are already planning to introduce changes in the text... Regards Juan Carlos > Yes, it is an issue. I think if applications are concerned with > interoperability, they should only use the keywords defined in RFC 2253: > CN, L, ST, O, OU, C, STREET, DC, UID and use the OID form for any other > attributes. They should also consider using the hexadecimal enconding > for attribute values other than PrintableString or UTF8String. But I'm > not sure if we can add requirements, (even if they are recommendations) > like this at this stage. > > --Sean >
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 12:23:58 UTC