Re: [stir] I-D Action: draft-ietf-stir-certificates-17.txt

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 12/14/17 4:19 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Bit to quick in my response, to address the 2nd point:
>>
>>> On Dec 14, 2017, at 11:42, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> "123"+900 is now equivalent to "123"+876, which means that you have
>>> two ways to represent the same thing.  Don't we try to avoid that in
>>> certificates?  (I mean otherwise we'd use BER...)
>>
>> As far encoding something the same way: I’d be worried if “123”+900 and “123”+876 resulted in the same DER code, but it doesn’t.
> 
> No, this bits on the wire are different, but they specify the same block of telephone numbers.  Why do we want more than one way to specify the same block of numbers?

I agree that "123"+900 seems like a bad idea.

But even without that there are multiple ways to specify the same range 
of numbers: a single range, two or more smaller ranges that collectively 
cover the range, or a complete list of individual numbers.

	Thanks,
	Paul