IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [certid] Domain Components

Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org> Sat, 19 June 2010 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <phoffman@imc.org>
X-Original-To: certid@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: certid@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892283A6A26 for <certid@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lcsy0o5Ai5UH for <certid@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDFD3A6891 for <certid@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5JEgROh075390 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:42:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624082dc84286e8b770@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <4C1CD30B.4090200@isode.com>
References: <4C12A27D.3070308@stpeter.im> <p0624086ac8386db66483@[10.20.30.158]> <4C1CA2B8.9080103@isode.com> <p0624082ac8427d3d733f@[10.20.30.158]> <4C1CD30B.4090200@isode.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:42:25 -0700
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: IETF cert-based identity <certid@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [certid] Domain Components
X-BeenThere: certid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Representation and verification of identity in certificates <certid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid>, <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/certid>
List-Post: <mailto:certid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid>, <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:42:24 -0000

At 3:24 PM +0100 6/19/10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>I probably sound like a broken record, but the order is very clear for LDAP. I don't see why is this going to be different for X.509 certificates.

If you feel that way, fine. We have historically seen deployed PKIX implementations that got the order wrong because they had no certs to test with. I do not hold it against someone to get the order wrong, particularly because all of the text examples in RFC 5280 say "dc=example,dc=com".

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email