RE: X509Data tweaks

It seems to me that it might make sense to simply have each X509Data
element define the
information associated with a single certificate.  It would make it much
easier for implementers
to find the associated certificate when viewing the X509Data element.
For example, when moving
through the X509Data element, the X509SubjectName and X509IssuerSerial
elements may be encountered. It would be useful to know that these
referred to the same certificate.  If an X509Certificate element is
found, it should refer to the same certificate as that referred to by
X509SubjectName and X509IssuerSerial. If there is no X509SubjectName or
X509IssuerSerial, there should still only be one unique X509Certificate
per X509Data...


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Regan 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:33 PM
To: 'Donald E. Eastlake 3rd'; Kevin Regan
Subject: RE: X509Data tweaks

I did notice the initial wording that talked about only
having certificates "related" to the authentication public
key.  However, I still don't see why this change has anything
to do with moving from (a) multiple X509Data elements with a
single X509Certificate to (b) a single X509Data element with
multiple X509Certificate elements.

It seems that the coin flip went with (a) initially.  I don't
see why the change that you mentioned pushes us closer to (b)...


-----Original Message-----
From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd []
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:16 PM
To: Kevin Regan
Subject: Re: X509Data tweaks

I would say because the spec was being interpreted to prohibit having
any cert in KeyInfo except ones with the signature verifying public
key in them and requireing the use of RetrievalMethod to indicate
any other related certs.


From:  Kevin Regan <>
To:, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd"
Date:  Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:46:37 -0700

>I'm curious why the leaning is now towards multiple certificates
>in a single X509Data rather than 1 certificate per X509Data with
>multiple X509Data elements?  Is there a good reason for this?  If not,
>I don't think it would be appropriate to change the spec at this

Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2000 17:31:47 UTC