Thanks Oscar, Your information has been very helpful.
For us, the basics is having a system that is inexpensive and works reliably. This could never be said for X.500 and that's why we see so few systems based on those proposed standards in the world today. Why we are bothering, is that X.500 had many good ideas all those years ago. We're now resurrecting those ideas and building them into a IRBM (Instant Reliable Business Messaging) system that works. I take my hat off to all the guys like you who are working diligently to ensure that all the little things in OpenSSL are working properly. You're doing a great job. Keep it up. We on the other hand are doing something a little different that hasn't quite been done before and we need to "break a few rules" in order to make a system that is inexpensive whilst at the same time user friendly and reliable. In any case, we're having a lot of fun doing it, and our customers keep wanting more so we have to continue. Have a great day, David Lyon Product Manager Global TradeDesk www.globaltradedesk.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oscar Jacobsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Lyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: Re: How best to build certificates for New business naming scheme > Might I then suggest brushing up on your basics before venturing > further? > > file://oscar > > David Lyon wrote: > > > > > This does break the naming recommendations given in X.521 Annex B > > > though, which don't allow for a stateOrProvinceName. > > > > Yes, of course. The old Annex B, we obviously forgot about that one. > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
