RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.

     I don't know if there is a constraint, but doesn't it have the same
syntax as X509IssuerName?  Thus I would use the current example's issuer
name as the example subject name, while making the issuer name "O=IBM,
C=JP" - perhaps with "CN=Certificate Authority," prefixed.

          Tom Gindin

"Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <> on 07/18/2000 04:28:32 PM

Sent by:

To:   Yoshiaki KAWATSURA <>
Subject:  RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.

At 17:44 7/12/00 +0900, Yoshiaki KAWATSURA wrote:
 >I propose to revise the example of <X509IssuerName> in order to be the
 >correct one and add "The value of X509IssuerName (MUST?) conforms to
 >RFC2253" in XMLDSIG document (,for example).

I added SHOULD so as not to preclude an XML representation in the future.

4.4.4 The X509Data Element
An X509Data element within KeyInfo contains one or more identifiers of
keys/X509 certificates that may be useful for validation. Five types of
X509Data pointers are defined:
1. The X5009IssuerSerial element, which contains an X.509 issuer
distinguished name/serial number pair that SHOULD be compliant with RFC2253
[LDAP-DN],  ...

And tweaked the example as follows:

   <X509Data> <!-- two pointers to certificate-A -->
       <X509IssuerName>CN=TAMURA Kent, OU=TRL, O=IBM,
        L=Yamato-shi, ST=Kanagawa, C=JP</X509IssuerName>
   <X509Data> <!-- single pointer to certificate-B -->
     <X509SubjectName>Subject of Certificate B</X509SubjectName>

Is there a constraint on X509SubjectName?

Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst      
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair

Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2000 17:21:47 UTC