Re: [pkix] Proposal to review and adopt CertID and KeyID proposal

[Sean Leonard <[e-mail]>]

On 3/2/2010 1:46 PM, Stefan Santesson wrote:
> Sean,
>
> On this particular issue:
>
>
> On 10-03-02 9:45 PM, "Sean Leonard"<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> * Refocus the proposal to standardizing on a single structure for
>> uniquely identifying certificates on a going-forward basis. Namely:
>>     PKIXCertID ::= ESSCertIDv2
>>      
>
> What is the point of defining PKIXCertID?
> Why not just refer to ESSCertIDv2?
>
> As we have done in RFC 3161 update. See:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161-update-09
>    

For BER/CER/DER-encoded data, there is no practical difference. Which is 
the point, because I think it's undesirable to design a new structure.

For other encodings and for actual implementations, the name may make a 
difference (e.g., XER encoding, Java foo.pkix.types.PKIXCertID, C/C++ 
struct/class PKIXCertID, etc.).

The main advantage of naming it that way, as an alias, is the same as 
naming any structure by its intended purpose rather than some random 
word like F$mal. ESSCertIDv2 suggests that the structure is associated 
with S/MIME Enhanced Security Services. But by making it an alias rather 
than redefining PKIXCertID, the same code paths can be (mostly) reused. 
That's all.

Sean