On 12/03/15 14:46, Stephen Kent wrote: > This gets to my point of why it is inappropriate to cite a > design decision of an Experimental RFC as an alternative to > existing Standards.
No, we currently have no existing standard or bcp that says the OCTET STRING value has to be decodable as ASN.1. So this is not a question of an alternative to an existing standard but is only about a new standard. > The fact that a small group of implementers > elected to use a questionable encoding for a cert extension > does not, per se, justify perpetuating that. Well, the above is clearly coming at the issue from only one point of view, and "small group", "questionable" and "perpetuating" are all pejorative terms when looked at from the point of view of those who have running code. S. _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
