Did anyone consider using RFC4211 CRMF requests as "pre-certificates"? CRMF has both issuer and serialNumber, as well as extensions. The CertTemplate of RFC4211 is basically a TBSCertificate.
Cheers, Tomas PS: time to change subject of the thread? On 02/26/2014 05:46 AM, Rob Stradling wrote: > On 26/02/14 13:33, Carl Wallace wrote: >>>> >>>> While I agree that lack of a CA certificate with the matching naming >>>> really doesn¹t matter, breaking name chaining seems like an odd way to >>>> maintain ³ritual compliance". Why not bump the version number instead? >>>> v4 could be defined as a pre-certificate containing a poison extension >>>> and >>>> a serial number that matches its v3 counterpart. >>> >>> Hi Carl. I briefly discussed the idea of changing the version number >>> with Ben a few months ago... >> >> Sorry for the rehash. There are occasions where I miss an email in this >> list:-) > > No need to apologize. It was an off-list discussion. :-) > _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
