- From: Vamsi Motukuru <vamsi.motukuru@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:22:16 -0400
- To: www-xkms@w3.org
- CC: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > >>> [186] X.509 should be replaced by X.500 >> >> >> I'm confused here. The xmlsig spec states "X.509 distinguished names". I >> wonder if X.509v3 redefined what is a DN, e.g., simplifying it from the >> X.500 definition. Looking on the web, it seems some people say X.509 DN >> and other people X.500 DN. >> I don't have the X.509v3 spec. here right now. Could you verify before I >> make the change? If it's X.500, then that's what it will be. > > > DistinguishedName is the same in both. Strictly this is defined > by X.500, but practically, its only really used by X.509, at > least as far as we care, therefore I'd just about prefer the > X.509 reference. > > S. Given that XML-SIG usage of X.509 DN, let's go with X.509. - Vamsi
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 17:25:43 UTC