RE: SEIS: Stray Poll: SerialNumber definition

[Charles Moore <cmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My personal preference was for a new attraibute, but given that serial
number is wrong..., dnq was in a previous draft, and it appears that there
is consensus that your usage of dnq is actually valid....
Then your suggestion seems a resonable way forward...


-----Original Message-----
From: katarina.de-brisis@aad.dep.telemax.no
[mailto:katarina.de-brisis@aad.dep.telemax.no]
Sent: Saturday, 19 February 2000 0:04
To: Anders Rundgren; EL-SIGN@LIST.ETSI.FR; ietf-pkix@imc.org;
list@seis.nc-forum.com
Subject: SEIS: Stray Poll: SerialNumber definition


Reinstate dnQualifier!
It is more "user friendly" when discussing certificate contents with
non-technical people. In 
the wake of the EU-directive this will definitively be the case that a much
larger community 
than PKIX will address digital certificate format and content. Nobody wants
to think of 
themselves as "serial number". Besides, as A. Rudgren points out, the
dnQualifier has been 
(mis)used for unique number by many (us in Norway, e.g.).
Best regards,
Katarina de Brisis
____________________________________________________________________
Katarina de Brisis, senior adviser, Royal Ministry of Labour and Government 
Administration, P.O. Box 8004 Dep., 0030 Oslo
Phone + 47 22 24 46 46 Fax + 47 22 24 95 17
Internet e-mail katarina.de-brisis@aad.dep.no