Thank you Jaime , but I had already checked that.At that link I can only find the following very short exchange between chrisbn and sleevi:
@chrisbn chrisbn May 13, 2022 Yes, I wonder about the order of fields not in this list.I understand the hierarchy to order logic, but is the order defined in Section 7.1.4.2 based on an existing specification, or how did we come to this ordering?@sleevi sleevi May 13, 2022It is based on the definitions within X.509 and X.520, given these fields are generally geographical in nature. That said, there’s definitely flexibility here to get us closer to consistency among CAs, which is a key point of profiling, so if there are changes and concerns, it’s totally appropriate to highlight.
That does not seem to clarify much, so I suppose there is more somewhere else.
No discussion of the mailing list? No discussion in SCWG calls? Adriano Il 21/03/2024 09:52, Jaime Hablutzel ha scritto:
The discussion in https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/36#discussion_r872103477 could help.On 21 Mar 2024, at 09:39, Adriano Santoni via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote:All, can anyone help me find the past email discussion, or at least the rationale that someone wrote somewhere (e.g. on Github?), supporting the Subject attributes encoding relative order requirement that was introduced in BR 2.0.0 (Ballot SC-062) ?I am talking about §7.1.4.2 Subject Attribute Encoding, and specifically about this language:"CAs that include attributes in the Certificate subject field that are listed in the table below SHALL encode those attributes in the relative order as they appear in the table and follow thespecified encoding requirements for the attribute."I do not recall, and cannot find, a discussion on this mailing list on this particular topic. Maybe I just missed a whole bunch of email messages due to some otherwise undetected email problem. I also did a search on Github, starting from the links provided at https://cabforum.org/2023/03/17/ballot-sc62v2-certificate-profiles-update/), but was unable to figure out who proposed it and, above all, for what reason.Adriano _______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list Servercert-wg@cabforum.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cabforum.org_mailman_listinfo_servercert-2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=-bX5hBm1IdRDykQ-dBR8tsFRCM4v1VXUyG7RZa2WqPY&m=TmnUymVu4aN7JJUi7E4FNf5W7JAuYX7-j6JtyhXK9EAAxJqhk7RvTa9sOsMmibge&s=pzZ-HMcq_CggzRO87gqT5_XxYy9n5hIbsxrERd7c_so&e=
smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
_______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list Servercert-wg@cabforum.org https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
