> On 17 May 2017, at 11:25 pm, Adriano Santoni <[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 ?
It’s not ‘non-conformant’, exactly; the word I would use is ‘wrong’. It means something but it does not mean what the author thinks it means. The above corresponds to an address that might look like this when placed on an envelope: ACME SA 38, Place Charles De Gaulle, 76600 Le Havre, France Le Havre, Seine-Maritime FRANCE Probably the envelope will be delivered, but it’ll be rejected by auto-sorting machines and require manual processing.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
