On 21/09/2013 13:48, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Not sure what the question is really, but I absolutely
do wonder why anyone would consider it a good plan to
change specs like x.509 apparently without there being
any implementers who want those changes.
Luckily, rfc 5280 has all you need anyway so its not
that important any more if x.509 changes.
Yes for PKCs, but it does not address Erik's point which is about ACs
David
S
On 09/21/2013 01:42 PM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
does anyone have any druthers here for
Erik who is trying to update the old
X.509 spec?
--tony
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [T17Q11] Attribute certificate path
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:10:20 +0200
From: Erik Andersen <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Hi Folks,
I noticed that 12.2 of X.509 talks about attribute certificate path.
However, the associated ASN.1 is a data type is called
AttributeCertificationPath. As we for public-key certificates talk about
certification path, it seems reasonable to use the term "attribute
certification path" rather that "attribute certificate path".
I also noticed that the ASN.1 indicates that the path is bottom up
rather top down:
AttributeCertificationPath ::= SEQUENCE {
attributeCertificate AttributeCertificate,
acPath SEQUENCE OF ACPathData OPTIONAL,
... }
Please come back with comments.
Erik
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
