Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
> If this is scoped to dnsNames then I’m fine with it going forward as is.
> Other names would be problematic.
>
Could you be more specific as to what other names would be problematic and
list them explicitly? Here are the choices in a GeneralName:
otherName [0] OtherName,
rfc822Name [1] IA5String,
dNSName [2] IA5String,
x400Address [3] ORAddress,
directoryName [4] Name,
ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName,
uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String,
iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING,
registeredID
Thanks,
Brian
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
