Additional issue on RFC 2253 usage in relation with XMLSig: On the capability of the RFC2253 "CN=Sam"encoding form for identifying a Certificate.

Dear all,

I understood in our last conference call that Frederick suggested to 
summarize the issues related to the RFC 2253 stuff within XMLSig.

In addition to the RFC 2253 encoding stuff that we have been discussing 
in a separated thread, and which has been summarized by Thomas, who has 
raised a proposal last week, I would like to remind an issue that I 
raised in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0021.html

and that was commented by Ed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xmlsec-maintwg/2007Jun/0024.html

This issue deals with the fact that both RFC 2253 and RFC 4514 make it 
clear that the String representation using short names and string values 
for for representing DNs may put problems when trying to identifying 
without ambiguity the corresponding certificate...

Could we deal with this, once we have agreed on the encoding issue?

Regards

Juan Carlos.

Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 15:57:03 UTC