On 18/05/17 07:25, Adriano Santoni via Public wrote: > 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?
I think that if anyone is rendering this data somewhere for someone to read, it's going to lead to a bad rendering with duplicated data. So it's a bad idea. > Does anybody think that such a certificate should be regarded as > non-conformant to the BRs ? As someone else noted, the BRs define a bunch of address fields, which implies to me that each contains only the data that it names, and other data goes in the other appropriately-named fields. So yes. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
