Re: DER in ac509prof-03

[Paul Koning <pkoning@xxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> writes:

 Russ> I disagree.  We are using the ASN.1-1988 documents, not the
 Russ> 1997 ones. 

 Russ> At 11:43 AM 05/10/2000 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:

 >> "DER is defined in [X.208-88]" -> "DER is defined in [X.690-97]"
 >> is fine by me, anyone else care?

Are the two different?  That is, are there bitstrings that conform to
one but not the other, or whose meaning changes depending on which
spec you use?

I think Russ's position is problematic.  It's a bit like saying that
you continue to use an RFC that has been superseded.  Presumably it
was superseded for a reason.  Also, while old RFCs are still
available, 12 year old ITU specs may only exist in antique shops by
now.   Clearly, it is not acceptable to have an RFC that points to an
outside standard unless that outside standard is available.

	paul