On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Adriano Santoni via Public < [email protected]> wrote:
> Here is an example: (please note: it's a *fake one*, generated via > an on-line fake address generator) > > O=ACME SA > STREET=38, Place Charles de Gaulle, 76600 Le Havre, France > L=Le Havre > ST=Seine-Maritime > C=FR > > In the above example, streetAddress not only contains a street name and > house number, but other info as well, including the locality (already > specified in the separate localityName attribute) and the country (already > specified in the separate countryName attribute), and a postal code that > should probably be moved elsewhere (e.g. in the specific postalCode > attribute, if used). > > It is quite obvious, in the above example, that the address information > are consistent, overall. The question I am asking is: is this way of > populating streetAddress okay, from a compliance point of view? > > Does anybody think that such a certificate should be regarded as > non-conformant to the BRs ? > Yes
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
