On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:28:25 GMT, Weijun Wang <wei...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> While I understand that, `new DerValue(byte[])` will be ignored and this >> will be also inconsistent with the remaining general names. Looking at >> sun.security.x509.GeneralName.GeneralName(DerValue, boolean) they all throw >> `IOException`. > > For other known names, you either return a parsed name or fail. For > `otherName`, you already have the raw data and this further parsed name is a > bonus. I just don't like a problem in getting the bonus to ruin the original > benefit. Also, I think the caller will have to check the length and the type > anyway so this will not be an extra burden. Besides, I always feel that > `otherName` could be freely extended and the quality of its encoding might > not be as guaranteed as the other ones. @seanjmullan, any comment here? > > Too many "other" used and hopefully no one get confused. This seems like a reasonable balance between preserving existing behavior and still providing the data for the application to inspect. To help debugging, you could log the exception. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7167
