On 03.07.2010 07:46, =JeffH wrote:
> * I think we need to review the terms/phrases we use to reference cert
> components and aspects thereof. I think we're being inconsistent and at times
> ambiguous (need to do careful review). unfortunately other specs we depend on
> use non-congruent terminology it seems.
>
> E.g. in just sections 2.2 and 3 we use these various terms/phrases wrt
> "subjectAltName"...
>
> subjectAltName extension
>
> subjectAltName extension types
>
> subjectAltNames
>
> subjectAltName entry
>
> SubjectAltName field
>
> subjectAltName identifier
>
> subjectAltName identifier types
>
> subjectAltName identifier of type
>
> [the GeneralName structure in] the subjectAltName
>
>
> ..and then including the rest of the spec we also use (in addition to the
> above)..
>
> application-specific subjectAltName extensions
>
> subjectAltName extension of type
>
> subjectAltName extensions of type
>
>
> Obviously various of the above terms/phrases are redundant and we ought to
> clean this up.
Agreed. My earlier suggestion ("subjectAltName entry") is mainly due to
the following statement in RFCs 2459/3280/5280:
If the subjectAltName extension is present, the sequence MUST contain
at least one entry.
"Extension" is actually the term for the whole container - i.e., I would
refrain from using wording like "subjectAltName extension of type X" (or
even "subjectAltName extensions", because a particular extension is only
allowed to occur once, as per RFCs 2459/3280/5280). Also,
"subjectAltNames" seems rather sloppy as a term, IMO.
Kaspar
_______________________________________________
certid mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid
