Rob,
On 26/02/15 15:37, Stephen Kent wrote:
I disagree with this proposed resolution of the issue.
RFC 5246 says of the syntax:
... The following very basic and somewhat casually
defined presentation syntax will be used. The syntax draws from
several sources in its structure. Although it resembles the
programming language "C" in its syntax and XDR [XDR] in both its
syntax and intent, it would be risky to draw too many parallels.
*The**
** purpose of this presentation language is to document TLS only;
it has**
** no general application beyond that particular goal.*
Thus use of this syntax in an X.509 cert extension is contrary to the
spirit of 5246.
If that was the intended spirit, why didn't the 5246 authors write
this instead:
"; it MUST NOT be used beyond that particular goal."
That's a fair question for EKR. Normally an RFC author doesn't say that
a given
construct is intended for use only in the context of the RFC. We usually
like
to assume that what we develop may have more widespread application
beyond the
context of the RFC. When an author does make a statement of the sort
cited above,
it suggests that the author was concerned about more widespread use of
the syntax
(in this case).
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
