Dear All,
1)
The RFC 2459 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2459.txt) mentions under
heading 5.3.1 (Reason Code) that CRL entry extension should be absent
instead of using the unspecified (0) reasonCode value.
Now, if its not meant to be used then why is it specified in the first
place? What is the
On Dec 8, 2007 3:55 AM, D3!$ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear All,
1)
The RFC 2459 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2459.txt) mentions under
heading 5.3.1 (Reason Code) that CRL entry extension should be absent
instead of using the unspecified (0) reasonCode value.
Now, if its not meant to be
Steffen Schulz wrote, On 2007-12-07 19:50:
On 071208 at 01:25, Nelson Bolyard wrote:
[snip]
Do you have a companion bug/RFE for adding the necessary UI support to
PSM (Personal Security Manager), the Mozilla software component that
does UI for crypto-related issues? Having SRP in NSS won't do
D3|\||\|!$ wrote, On 2007-12-08 03:55:
[CRL question snipped. Kyle answered it.]
2) Consider the web page given below:
http://docs.sun.com/source/816-5533-10/ext.htm#1012064
It forewarns us to set the nonRepudiation (1) bit only after carefully
considering their legal consequences. Since
On Sunday 09 December 2007 01:28:09 pm Nelson Bolyard wrote:
Brad Hards wrote, On 2007-12-07 18:09:
[I've] found Chapter 3 of the OpenSSL book from OReilly to be quite OK.
There are a lot of cookbook books that might be entitled how to set
up a home brew CA using OpenSSL. I didn't want a
5 matches
Mail list logo
