Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > The simple answer is that when, in the past, developers have chosen to abuse > the semantics of subject name fields in certs, the result shave been VERY > long lasting, and embarrassing. Long ago, Netscape chose to shove a DNS name > into the DN common name filed because it was an easy fix for their > problem. As a result, we still have browsers and CAs that misuse that > field. At least that egregious behavior was not the result of an IETF > WG. Let's not screw this up in the name of expediency!
Yes, I remember that. Why do you think Netscape did that? What should they have done instead?
-- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
