Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 6 May 2004 08:24:57 -0400, "Erik Tkal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

etssl> Can anyone answer this? How do I tell if this is a known
etssl> problem with OpenSSL or if the RFC is incorrect, or if this is
etssl> just a accepted deviation?

I can't really say, as that's not my forte in OpenSSL, so what I say
is just a guess.

There are several places in OpenSSL (some ASN.1 stuff among others,
IIRC) where the standards aren't entirely followed to the letter (you
could say that the standards have been expanded a little bit, to be
kind), so as not to break with some other software (I think Microsoft
is often mentioned at this point...) that deviates from standards a
little bit.

My guess is that this possibility to generate an empty list of
ceritificate requests may be that kind of deviation.

I would love it if those in the team that really know the SSL parts
could give an accurate response...
I am certainly not an expert, but I thought the bending
of the rules was on the side of accepting things that were
not standard; not generating things which were not standard.
At least anything that would result in generating non-standard
output should have a SSL_OP flag associated with it.

What code is being executed that is causing the zero length
CA list?



Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to