Bonsoir Stephen, 2015-02-27 22:16 GMT+01:00 Stephen Kent <[email protected]>:
> Erwann, > >> The "TLS" syntax/notation is also used to describe certificates and >> messages in ITS world. It's very bad, but that's not RFC5246 authors's >> fault. >> > What is the "ITS" world? And is it under the IETF standards umbrella? if > not, then this is > not a good rationale for veering from the statement in 5246. > "Intelligent Transport System". Cars, trucks, motorbikes, tramways, trains, road equipment, ... See IEEE1609.2 and ETSI TS103097 if you're curious :) That's not (yet) under IETF umbrella. Point taken. X.509 permits the inclusion of anything in an extension, as long as it's >> enclosed in something that has an ASN.1+DER representation, whence the >> double OCTET STRING sometimes found. That's not new to CT. >> > True, but I think that is not commonly done in standard extensions. Do you > have some examples > that counter my perception? In my experience, people developing extensions > for > X.509 usually try to avoid cramming arbitrary data into an OCTET string. > You're right again. I can't think of a single extension except SignedCertificateTimestampList defined in anything other than ASN.1. When working around X.509, ASN.1 is natural. Going back into "silent lurker" mode... -- Erwann.
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
