Richard Levitte wrote:
> And still, short names have been used for a while, since they do appear
in
> X.400 addresses and in DNs a little here and there.
Pardon me for butting in to the discussion this late, but is this really
an issue of short or long names?
I think the core problem at hand seems to be the fact that there appears
to be confusion about the relationships between the X.500 attribute type
names and their RFC 2256 string representations.
'commonName' and 'cn' are not long and short names for 2.5.4.3, rather
ASN.1 and UTF-8 (string) names.
commonName is an X.520 AttributeType for use by other ASN.1 modules. Where
a string representation of this attribute type is required (when sending a
DN via LDAP, or in an e-mail signature for example), RFC 2256 mandates
that it be encoded as the string 'cn'. The string 'commonName' is to my
knowledge *not* an acknowledged alternative string encoding of the
attribute type. I can't find any mention of it in 2256, anyway.
//oscar
smime.p7s
