From: Jean-Marc Desperrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jean-marc.desperrier> Oscar Jacobsson wrote:
jean-marc.desperrier>
jean-marc.desperrier> > I don't think we could really go ahead and deprecate the use
of "UID", as RFC
jean-marc.desperrier> > 2253 defines it as the proper string encoding of the userid
attribute type, and the "short names"
jean-marc.desperrier> > appear to be used when string encoding distinguished names.
jean-marc.desperrier>
jean-marc.desperrier> The UID of openssl is NOT the UID of RFC2253.
Right. The short names are originally designed to represent the
commonly used (but, as far as I've found out, not really defined)
X.500 abbreviations (where UID is one, and correctly represented in
OpenSSL if one only looks to the X.500 world).
I was thinking some time ago that we might want to implement a third
set of names: LDAP-names. However, it didn't take long before I
realised what a can of worms/confusion that would open...
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-733-72 88 11
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Software Engineer, GemPlus: http://www.gemplus.com/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
