Re: URN in subjectAltName

[Milan Sova <sova+pkix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Russ Housley wrote:
> At the time that RFC 2459 was written, URLs were the only things mature
> enough to include here.  No one asked this question during the update to
> RFC 2459, which resulted in RFC 3280.
> 
	I see.

> Going forward, I see two possible ways to go forward:
> 
> 1) Revisit the uri choice, and see if people think URNs ought to be
> permitted.  One obvious question is to determine whether existing
> implementations would fail badly if a URN was received here.
> 
> 2) Define a way to carry URNs in an other name.
> 

	I would very much prefer 1). The URI seems to be the natural place for
URNs. I don't expect any reasonable implementations to fail, but let's
find out.
	BTW X.509 (08/2005) still uses RFC 1630 (mentioning URNs) as the
reference for the uniformResourceIdentifier.

	Regards
-- 
						Milan Sova