> Chris.Ridd> > The reason I have to cover what's in drafts is because most of what's
>out there
> Chris.Ridd> > is implemented from drafts rather than final standards (leading to
>problems
> Chris.Ridd>
> Chris.Ridd> You're right; this is something I've noticed PKI vendors (in
> Chris.Ridd> p
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> Let's face it, the world is littered with people who see a "cool
> draft" and can't wait to start implementing, and then get stuck, or
> don't really have the time to finish or go all the way...
Someone once did that with a draft of
Chris.Ridd> > The reason I have to cover what's in drafts is because most of what's
out there
Chris.Ridd> > is implemented from drafts rather than final standards (leading to
problems
Chris.Ridd>
Chris.Ridd> You're right; this is something I've noticed PKI vendors (in
Chris.Ridd> particular) d
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:06:26, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >I read Peter Guttmann's screed on X.509 and char sets last night -
> >interesting, though he does fall into the trap of discussing all the myriad
> >of drafts, and forgetting that these are just draft
Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I read Peter Guttmann's screed on X.509 and char sets last night -
>interesting, though he does fall into the trap of discussing all the myriad
>of drafts, and forgetting that these are just drafts. The standards
>themselves are less ambiguous.
The reason
On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 19:22:12 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> Chris Ridd wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:06:42 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> > > Chris Ridd wrote:
> > Treating it as 8859-1 is just plain wrong, and would penalise vendors
> > who bothered implementing the standards correctly
On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:09:36 +1100, "Ramsay, Ron" wrote:
> You say below that the type information is lost under RFC 2253, as if it is
> preservered under RFC 1779. It is not. The discussion in RFC 2253 applies to
> *all* LDAP DNs - it's a consequence of the string representation. It is
> therefor
r not.
Conversion to UTF-8 is probably the only way to make it unambiguous.
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Ridd [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 5 November 1999 19:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: DN formats
>
>
William M. Perry wrote:
>
> Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The DN string returned from the X509_NAME_oneline function has a
> > peculiar and non-standard format. (And undocumented too.)
> >
> > I have some diffs which will turn it into the RFC 1779 format, as a
> > comp
"Ramsay, Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't have an opinion on producing LDAP DNs but I think you should use
> the v3 form (RFC 2253) rather than the v2 form.
Well, 1485 is obsoleted by 1779, which is then in turn obsoleted by 2253.
I'd say go with the least obsolete format, which seems
I don't have an opinion on producing LDAP DNs but I think you should use the
v3 form (RFC 2253) rather than the v2 form.
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Ridd [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, 4 November 1999 1:12
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: DN formats
>
> Hi,
>
Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> The DN string returned from the X509_NAME_oneline function has a
> peculiar and non-standard format. (And undocumented too.)
>
> I have some diffs which will turn it into the RFC 1779 format, as a
> compile time option.
>
> Would they be of an
Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> The DN string returned from the X509_NAME_oneline function has a
> peculiar and non-standard format. (And undocumented too.)
>
> I have some diffs which will turn it into the RFC 1779 format, as a
> compile time option.
>
> Would they be of an
Chris Ridd wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The DN string returned from the X509_NAME_oneline function has a
> peculiar and non-standard format. (And undocumented too.)
>
> I have some diffs which will turn it into the RFC 1779 format, as a
> compile time option.
>
> Would they be of any interest? Or should
Chris Ridd wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:06:42 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> > Chris Ridd wrote:
> > > We'd also potentially run into the problem with some vendors assuming
> > > that T.61 doesn't actually mean T.61, it means ISO-8859-1. So
> > > converting these bogus "T.61" values would p
On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:06:42 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> Chris Ridd wrote:
> > We'd also potentially run into the problem with some vendors assuming
> > that T.61 doesn't actually mean T.61, it means ISO-8859-1. So
> > converting these bogus "T.61" values would produce UTF-8 with bogus
> > cha
Chris Ridd wrote:
>
> On 03 Nov 1999 20:04:07 EST, William M. Perry wrote:
> > "Ramsay, Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I don't have an opinion on producing LDAP DNs but I think you should use
> > > the v3 form (RFC 2253) rather than the v2 form.
> >
> > Well, 1485 is obsoleted by 1779
On 03 Nov 1999 20:04:07 EST, William M. Perry wrote:
> "Ramsay, Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't have an opinion on producing LDAP DNs but I think you should use
> > the v3 form (RFC 2253) rather than the v2 form.
>
> Well, 1485 is obsoleted by 1779, which is then in turn obsoleted
18 matches
Mail list logo
