In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:00:30 -0500, Charles B
Cranston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
zben> Having much the same results on my googling -- there is some
zben> mention of a PKIPath extension, but I did see a reference to
zben> an X509_4thEditionDraftV7.pdf which contains dates roughly
zben> simlar to the ones Richard quotes. There was a reference
zben> to RFC3281 which talks about attribute certificates,
zben> but the version code in those is 0 (version one). If v4
zben> really means anything in itself, it would imply a version
zben> code in the certificate of 3...
X509_4thEditionDraftV7.pdf (I'm reading my copy right now) still has
Time defined as a choice of UTCTime and GeneralizedTime, and (on page
23), version is still to be set to v2 (1) or v3 (2). So that doesn't
seem to have anything to do with the alleged X.509 v4...
And considering the discussions I mentioned were so long ago, and
nothing seems to have been said since, I'm assuming the v4 idea was
dropped, at least for now.
ACs are totally different beasts than the regular X.509 certs, even
though the are part of the X.509 draft mentioned above. Because of
that, it's really quite tricky to talk about X.509 v{anything}, since
the current version depends on the object type as well. I think it's
safe to assume we're talking about "regular" certs as long as nothing
else is said, though...
-----
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.
--
Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://richard.levitte.org/
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including
the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-- C.S. Lewis
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
