Re: 3280bis: OtherName "health warning"

["Sean P. Turner" <turners@xxxxxxxx>]

I'm NOT advocating adding any othername forms to 3280bis.  I'm asking if 
we should put in a health warning that says something to the effect of 
"if you want applications to do any kind of name matching based on your 
othername field you'd better define them in your document."

spt

Tom Gindin wrote:

>        Sean:
>
>        The only OTHER-NAME form that PKIX has created, AFAIK, is 
> Permanent Identifier.  Ways of specifying matching rules inside a PI were 
> specified in earlier drafts but then taken out in the approved version. 
> However, there are still rules on matching specified for each major case 
> (assigner present and absent, identifierValue present and absent). 
>
>                Tom Gindin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Sean P. Turner" <turners@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 03/09/2005 02:38 PM
>
>        To:     PKIX <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
>        cc: 
>        Subject:        3280bis: OtherName "health warning"
>
>
>
> Should we add a note in the Subject Alternative Name section to say 
> something like - when an othername form is created matching rules for 
> said othername name form must also be specified?
>
> spt
>
>
>
>