On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:25:05 +0100, "Rene G. Eberhard" wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 12:10:35 +0100, "Rene G. Eberhard" wrote:
> > > Cewl Mail.
> > > Can you please describe your problem a bit more detailed =)?
> > >
> > > BTW: It is not allowed to have more than one CN.
> >
> > It is - see X.5
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:06:26, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >I read Peter Guttmann's screed on X.509 and char sets last night -
> >interesting, though he does fall into the trap of discussing all the myriad
> >of drafts,
On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 19:22:12 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> Chris Ridd wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:06:42 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> > > Chris Ridd wrote:
> > Treating it as 8859-1 is just plain wrong, and would penalise vendors
> > who
On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 12:10:35 +0100, "Rene G. Eberhard" wrote:
> Cewl Mail.
> Can you please describe your problem a bit more detailed =)?
>
> BTW: It is not allowed to have more than one CN.
It is - see X.500 et al - but do you mean perhaps that OpenSSL can't
handle entering them?
Cheers,
Chr
On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:09:36 +1100, "Ramsay, Ron" wrote:
> You say below that the type information is lost under RFC 2253, as if it is
> preservered under RFC 1779. It is not. The discussion in RFC 2253 applies to
> *all* LDAP DNs - it's a consequence of the string representation. It is
> therefor
Hi,
The DN string returned from the X509_NAME_oneline function has a
peculiar and non-standard format. (And undocumented too.)
I have some diffs which will turn it into the RFC 1779 format, as a
compile time option.
Would they be of any interest? Or should there be a new function which
retur
On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:06:42 GMT, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> Chris Ridd wrote:
> > We'd also potentially run into the problem with some vendors assuming
> > that T.61 doesn't actually mean T.61, it means ISO-8859-1. So
> > converting these bogus "T.61&qu
On 03 Nov 1999 20:04:07 EST, William M. Perry wrote:
> "Ramsay, Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't have an opinion on producing LDAP DNs but I think you should use
> > the v3 form (RFC 2253) rather than the v2 form.
>
> Well, 1485 is obsoleted by 1779, which is then in turn obsoleted
