RE: Identification confusion continues

[Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanx Ed!
It would be particularly interesting to know who actually use or intend to use serialNumber as a
name collision eliminator.  I.e. the function of dnQualifier according to ITU...

/anders


----------
From:  Ed Gerck [SMTP:egerck@nma.com]
Sent:  Monday, February 14, 2000 16:54
To:  Stephen Kent
Cc:  Anders Rundgren; ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject:  Re: Identification confusion continues



>Stephen Kent wrote:

>> After extensive debate, folks in the ITU and IETF worlds agreed that
>> the syntax of what we needed is best expressed by serialNumbner, not
>> DNqualifier, and that a broadening of the definition of the former
>> attribute was the best path.  Moreover, we had reports from various
>> folks that people in the field had come to the same conclusion and
>> were already using serialNumber in this fashion.  So, we are
>> legitimizing current practice, and meeting a stated need, without
>> introducing a new attribute type.

>I may have missed this information in the draft?  Seems to me that it
>at least shows why the seemingly most obscure path was the path of
>choice, by calling a serialNumber what is not a "serial number".

>BTW, could we know what "people in the field had come to the same
>conclusion and were already using serialNumber in this fashion" and
>also who were the "various folks" that reported on this?  It might be
>useful to get back to both sides and see exactly what is being done
>ahead of the standards.

>Cheers,

>Ed Gerck