Re: AW: 3280bis: key usage (13)

[pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Gutmann)]

thomas.beckmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

>why not make it the other way round? Why not call it contentCommitment in the
>definition with a note that this was nonRepudiation in older versions?

That makes a lot of sense.  Since no-one could ever figure out what
nonRepudiation was meant to imply anyway, forgetting that it ever existed as
quickly as possible seems to be the best move.

(To any X.509 people present, what was the motivation for redefining NR rather
 than just creating a new CC bit and allowing NR to live on in limbo as it has
 been in the past?  Surely redefining a bit - even if it's one that no-one
 really knows what to do with - is more problematic than adding a new one).

Peter.