RE: Questions/Comments for the current draft.

The constraints should be the same on X509IssuerName and X509SubjectName,
since both are DNs.  So a reference to RFC2253 would be appropriate for


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. []
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 1:29 PM
To: Yoshiaki KAWATSURA
Cc: Brian LaMacchia;;
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 X509IssuerSerial 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 17:26:45 UTC