Not sure what the question is really, but I absolutely
do wonder why anyone would consider it a good plan to
change specs like x.509 apparently without there being
any implementers who want those changes.
Luckily, rfc 5280 has all you need anyway so its not
that important any more if x.509 changes.
S
On 09/21/2013 01:42 PM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> does anyone have any druthers here for
> Erik who is trying to update the old
> X.509 spec?
>
> --tony
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [T17Q11] Attribute certificate path
> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:10:20 +0200
> From: Erik Andersen <e...@x500.eu>
> To: <t13sg17...@lists.itu.int>
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I noticed that 12.2 of X.509 talks about attribute certificate path.
> However, the associated ASN.1 is a data type is called
> AttributeCertificationPath. As we for public-key certificates talk about
> certification path, it seems reasonable to use the term "attribute
> certification path" rather that "attribute certificate path".
>
> I also noticed that the ASN.1 indicates that the path is bottom up
> rather top down:
>
> AttributeCertificationPath ::= SEQUENCE {
>
> attributeCertificate AttributeCertificate,
>
> acPath SEQUENCE OF ACPathData OPTIONAL,
>
> ... }
>
> Please come back with comments.
>
> Erik
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wpkops mailing list
> wpkops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
>
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
wpkops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
