In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:54:46
+0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Joop) said:
joop> is the order part of X.500 syntax (isn't it semantics?) or is it just
joop> a general convention?
I've perceived it as a general convention.
BTW, thinking about it, I'm not sure why this discussion acme up at
all. Certificates are often stored as attributes of a record (eh,
terminology isn't a strength of mine, so if "record" isn't the proper
term, please pardon me), at least in the directories that I've viewed,
and the LDAP DN isn't necesserely the same (obviously, it's at least
inversed :-)).
So I wonder, what exactly is the problem here? Do the OpenCA folks
want the LDAP DN and the X.509 DN in their certificates to have an
exact match?
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
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]
