Re: [certid] Need to define "most specific RDN"

[Peter Sylvester <[e-mail]>]

>> 2. More substantially, we currently have this text:
>>
>>    The subject field of a PKIX certificate is defined as an X.501 type
>>    Name and known as a Distinguished Name (DN) -- see [X.501] and
>>    [PKIX].  A DN is an ordered sequence of Relative Distinguished Names
>>    (RDNs), where each RDN is a set (i.e., an unordered group) of type-
>>    and-value pairs or "attribute value assertions" (AVAs) [LDAP-DN],
>>    each of which asserts some attribute about the subject of the
>>    certificate.  In the DER encoding of a DN, the RDNs are always in
>>    order from most significant to least significant (i.e., the first RDN
>>    is most significant and the last RDN is least significant); however,
>>    in the string representation of a DN as used in various protocols and
>>    data formats, the RDNs might be ordered from most significant to
>>    least significant (e.g., this is true of LDAP) or from least
>>    significant to most significant.
>>      
>
> One could replace 'least/most significant' here with 'most/least specific'.
>    
+1  significant is a bad term in this context IMO according to W&M:

*1* *:* having meaning; /especially/ *:* suggestive 
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestive> <a significant 
glance>
*2 a* *:* having or likely to have influence or effect *:* important 
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/important> <a significant 
piece of legislation>; /also/ *:* of a noticeably or measurably large 
amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> 
*b* *:* probably caused by something other than mere chance 
<statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and 
disease>