On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Adam Langley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > OK so working on the draft and trying to get a handle on how to sort out > all > > these degrees of freedom. > > > > While I was doing so discovered that RFC 5280 doesn't really specify a > > certificate lifecycle as such, it describes a mechanism for reporting > CRLs > > which is not quite the same thing. > > > > The other thing I was somewhat surprised to find is that the cACompromise > > reason code is defined but at no point in the document does the string > > cACompromise occur in the context of defining when it should be used. > Same > > for the other reason codes. > > Not to mention, does anyone have any idea what an aACompromise could mean? > Its an attribute authority. For attribute certs. Well actually that is only a supposition because none of the terms seem to be defined. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
