On Fri, Nov 29, 2013, Erwann Abalea wrote:
> Le 29/11/2013 17:53, Erwann Abalea a écrit :
> >Le 29/11/2013 16:25, Dr. Stephen Henson a écrit :
> >
> >>Changing OIDs in the table is problematical. If anything uses them it could
> >>break them in all sorts of ways. The NID_* entries would change and
Le 29/11/2013 17:53, Erwann Abalea a écrit :
Le 29/11/2013 16:25, Dr. Stephen Henson a écrit :
Changing OIDs in the table is problematical. If anything uses them it could
break them in all sorts of ways. The NID_* entries would change and text based
lookup would no longer work.
The reference
Le 29/11/2013 16:25, Dr. Stephen Henson a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013, Erwann Abalea wrote:
How nice, they're asking for a self-signed certificate to include a
specific EKU to indicate it's a Trust Anchor, and the OID used for
this has never been allocated. Crazy.
I just looked at OpenSSL's o
Le 28/11/2013 22:18, Rob Stradling a écrit :
On 28/11/13 15:14, Erwann Abalea wrote:
How nice, they're asking for a self-signed certificate to include a
specific EKU to indicate it's a Trust Anchor, and the OID used for this
has never been allocated. Crazy.
It's crazier than that. RFC5906 see
