Re: FW: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509"

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>]

It seems like there are two questions here:

- Do we object to the ITU making the upper bound on DirectoryString optional

- Should we do anything to draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis to reflect that

The answer to the first should be "no, we don't". Russ gave a list 
that shows the the ITU has a *long* way to go before it gets rid of 
the silly maximum lengths in X.509.

For me, the answer to the second question is "no" because of the 
large number of other silly limitations, most notably CommonName 
being 64 characters.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium