RE: Logotypes in certificates

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

>      Wouldn't Logotypes most easily be implemented as an OTHER-NAME within
>one of the alternate name fields (probably SubjectAltName)?  If so, how
>would they affect NameConstraints and the like?  IMHO, they would have
>little effect on them since logos are not hierarchical names and thus
>couldn't easily be governed by NameConstraints.
>      Since they are naming (or at least identifying) information about the
>subject or issuer, I don't see why they should be in a different extension.
>IMO, the standard way of displaying these should be to display the logo
>along with the text of the highest-precedence ID for that entity anyway.
>Binding them together in the same extension would encourage that.

I think the answer to your first question is no, but we need to hear 
from Stefan about what he envisioned. I was assuming a new extension. 
If logos were stuffed into an OtherName, the best we could do is to 
prohibit them by ruling out use of that name type in the subject alt 
name field via nameConstraints. Now maybe we're getting some handle 
on control that works with the current path validation algorithm, but 
it's not much.

We need to see a more concrete proposal before we can proceed with a 
reasoned, technical evaluation of the potential for this proposed 
field.

Steve