Re: URN in subjectAltName

["David Simonetti" <dsimonetti@xxxxxxxx>]

Russ,

We're using Active Directory UPNs, not URNs.  I was wondering why this was
a big deal.

Dave S.

>
> David:
>
> Can you document what you are doing so that everyone that needs a URN
> can do it the same way?
>
> Russ
>
>
> At 09:31 AM 1/30/2007, David Simonetti wrote:
>>A US Federal agency which I support is planning on using the otherName
>>field to convey the URN.  This agency is issuing more than 80,000
>>certificates.  I think use of URN more be more prevelant with those
>>implementing Active Directory than is realized.
>>
>>I believe defining URN via otherName is sufficient.  We're conveying it
>> as
>>a UTF8String.
>>
>>Dave S.
>>
>> >
>> > At 2:16 AM -0500 1/28/07, 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.
>> >>
>> >>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.
>> >
>> > This seems like overkill given the low usage of URNs as identifiers
>> > that are associated with public keys.
>> >
>> >>2) Define a way to carry URNs in an other name.
>> >
>> > Anders and I have suggested two legal ways to do this already.
>> >
>> > --Paul Hoffman, Director
>> > --VPN Consortium
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>--
>>Regards,
>>David Simonetti
>>Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.
>>410-356-1067
>
>


-- 
Regards,
David Simonetti
Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.
410-356-1067