- From: <tgindin@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:56:32 -0400
- To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- cc: Yoshiaki KAWATSURA <kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
The CRL variant defined in X.509v3 is version 2 of the X.509 CRL data structure. There is no version 3 of this data structure AFAIK. That syntax could be plausibly referred to as "version 2 X.509 CRL's" because its version number is 2, or as "X.509v3 CRL's" after the spec in which it seems to have been first published. "X.509v2 CRL's" is an apparent mistranscription of "X.509 v2 CRL's" (as used in RFC 2459) with the space indicating the structure version rather than the spec version. The simplest description is actually "the X.509 CRL format with extensions". Does anybody care which of these descriptions is used in our spec? Tom Gindin "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>@w3.org on 10/03/2000 08:29:35 AM Sent by: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org To: Yoshiaki KAWATSURA <kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp> cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org Subject: Re: Very minor comment in the spec. I don't think there is any significant use of other than v3 these days. Donald From: Yoshiaki KAWATSURA <kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp> To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org Cc: kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001002171759.02e06040@rpcp.mit.edu> References: <200009280812.RAA10090@ns.trl.ibm.com> <200009290127.KAA26690@ns.trl.ibm.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20001002171759.02e06040@rpcp.mit.edu> Message-Id: <20001003183030K.kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:30:30 +0900 (JST) >I have a very minor comment in the spec. >### >4.4.4 The X509Data Element > > 5. The X509CRL element, which contains a Base64-encoded X.509v2 > ^^^^^^^ > certificate revocation list (CRL). >### > >X.509v3 is better though we can also contain a Base64-encoded X.509v2 >CRL in the X509CRL... > >---- >Yoshiaki Kawatsura : E-mail kawatura@bisd.hitachi.co.jp > Business Solution Systems Division, Hitachi,Ltd. >Voice: +81-44-549-1713(direct) Fax: +81-44-549-1721 >
Received on Tuesday, 3 October 2000 10:56:50 UTC