W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2001

LF in the middle of a name in X509IssuerName and X509SubjectName

From: ZOHAR,ILAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) <ilan_zohar@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:51:25 -0400
Message-ID: <878B7E94C206D511895800A0C9F4871C0107E1CD@xcup01.cup.hp.com>
To: "'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

XMLDsig describes X509IssuerName and X509Subject name as RFC2253 compliant
see  http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#sec-X509Data
The X509IssuerSerial element, which contains an X.509 issuer distinguished
name/serial number pair that SHOULD be compliant with RFC2253 [LDAP-DN], 
The X509SubjectName element, which contains an X.509 subject distinguished
name that SHOULD be compliant with RFC2253 [LDAP-DN], 

Examination of RFC2253 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2253.txt shows that those
fields should be described by AttributeTypeAndValue's separated by commas
which are converted to AttributeType and "=" and AttributeValue

AttributeValue when represented by a string (see section 2.4 of rfc2253) is
exactly that string.
An XML document may be written in different equivalent ways, one of them can
divide a distinguished name value in the middle by a LF/CR character.

The question is where in the standard can one find the treatments of those
Linefeed characters? 
Which is the correct case? 1. is equivalent to 2. but not to 3.? or 2.
equivalent to 3. rather than 1. or all are equivalent?

<X509IssuerName>CN=Steve Kille</X509IssuerName>

identical (or more accurately) equivalent to 

or rather 2 is equivalent to 3. and not 1.
<X509IssuerName>CN=Steve Linefeed Kille</X509IssuerName>

Ilan Zohar
Hewlett Packard
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 18:14:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:10:05 UTC