Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Sean,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Sean Mullan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
However, do you think we should be referencing version 4? has there
been much uptake of v4?
Not sure, but I would be more inclined to reference RFC 5280:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
What version of X.509 are you referencing? v3, v4?
I've updated the references to version 3, using the following citation:
ITU-T Recommendation X.509 version 3 (1997). Information Technology -
Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory Authentication Framework
ISO/IEC
Hi Sean,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Sean Mullan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
However, do you think we should be referencing version 4? has there
been much uptake of v4?
Not sure, but I would be more inclined to reference RFC 5280:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt
Here are some comments -
An XML Digital Signature reference is defined but never referenced.
Also, the reference description and 2nd URL needs to be updated to
reflect the date of the 2nd edition (June 2008) and the authors. You
list the editors, but the authors is probably more appropriate.
