Re: [certid] version -07

[Kaspar Brand <[e-mail]>]

On 03.07.2010 07:46, =JeffH wrote:
> * I think we need to review the terms/phrases we use to reference cert 
> components and aspects thereof. I think we're being inconsistent and at times 
> ambiguous (need to do careful review). unfortunately other specs we depend on 
> use non-congruent terminology it seems.
> 
> E.g. in just sections 2.2 and 3 we use these various terms/phrases wrt 
> "subjectAltName"...
> 
>    subjectAltName extension
> 
>    subjectAltName extension types
> 
>    subjectAltNames
> 
>    subjectAltName entry
> 
>    SubjectAltName field
> 
>    subjectAltName identifier
> 
>    subjectAltName identifier types
> 
>    subjectAltName identifier of type
> 
>    [the GeneralName structure in] the subjectAltName
> 
> 
> ..and then including the rest of the spec we also use (in addition to the above)..
> 
>    application-specific subjectAltName extensions
> 
>    subjectAltName extension of type
> 
>    subjectAltName extensions of type
> 
> 
> Obviously various of the above terms/phrases are redundant and we ought to 
> clean this up.

Agreed. My earlier suggestion ("subjectAltName entry") is mainly due to
the following statement in RFCs 2459/3280/5280:

   If the subjectAltName extension is present, the sequence MUST contain
   at least one entry.

"Extension" is actually the term for the whole container - i.e., I would
refrain from using wording like "subjectAltName extension of type X" (or
even "subjectAltName extensions", because a particular extension is only
allowed to occur once, as per RFCs 2459/3280/5280). Also,
"subjectAltNames" seems rather sloppy as a term, IMO.

Kaspar