Alexey,
Hi Stephen,
On 07/10/2013 16:44, Stephen Kent wrote:
3.1.2 of 6484 says that the CA SHOULD NOT use meaningful names, which
leaves the CA some leeway.3.1.2 in the CPS draft says "The name of
the subscriber will not be "meaningful" ", which is less flexible.OK,
so this is a template that the CAs can modify, and that language is
helpful to the desired outcome that the subject names are meaningless.
*I've changed it to more closely match 6484.*
3.1.3 says
"Although Subject names in certificates issued by this Organization need
not be meaningful,"
which is inconsistent with 3.1.2. And 3.1.5 says "Because the Subject names are not intended to be meaningful".
So is it "will not be meaningful" or "need not be meaningful"?
*changed to "SHOULD NOT be meaningful." Could make this an erratum for 6484 if
we want.*
I don't think there is any compliance statement here (how are you
going to test for compliance?). So I think you should use "is not
meaningful" instead.
Good point. It would be easy to find examples that clearly violated this
direction, but there
could be a lot of "gray" area cases!
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
