RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.

     The generalname draft is for displaying the variants of GeneralName,
which are usually found in the alternate name certificate extensions.  It
assumes that a DN (and issuer names are DN's) are displayed essentially in
LDAP (RFC 1485/1779/2253) format, with a fixed prefix of "directory:".  It
also specifies formats for several other GeneralName variants.

          Tom Gindin

"Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>@w3.org on 06/26/2000 02:51:25
AM

Please respond to <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>

Sent by:  w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org


To:   "Yoshiaki KAWATSURA" <kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp>,
      <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>,
      "Brian LaMacchia" <bal@microsoft.com>
cc:
Subject:  RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.



Hi Yoshiaki!

> (2-1) For X509Data
> I think the X509IssuerName in the example of X509Data should be
> described actual value such that distinguished name, for example
> <X509IssuerName>CN =XXX Cert, C= US, O = XXX Trust Inc.</X509IssuerName>.
> # Is there any general guideline which describes about text
representation
> # of distinguished name? I found <draft-ietf-pkix-generalname-00.txt>
> # which specifies text representations for distinguished names
> # but this document has already expired.

A previous version of the XML-Signature draft mentioned RFC 2253 as the way
to represent a Name as a text string, I think this is still intended by
the authors

(Joseph, Brian: Am I right here?)

Regards, Gregor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregor Karlinger
mailto://gregor.karlinger@iaik.at
http://www.iaik.at
Phone +43 316 873 5541
Institute for Applied Information Processing and Communications
Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 26 June 2000 14:02:38 UTC