[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Revised Certificate Extensions Amendment Text
- To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Revised Certificate Extensions Amendment Text
- From: "Anil R. Gangolli" <gangolli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:31:13 -0800
- In-reply-to: "warwick (w.s.) ford" <wford@nortel.ca> "Revised Certificate Extensions Amendment Text" (Jun 2, 12:15pm)
- References: <"24293 Sun Jun 2 12:16:04 1996"@bnr.ca>
- Reply-to: gangolli@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 2, 12:15pm, warwick (w.s.) ford wrote:
> Subject: Revised Certificate Extensions Amendment Text
Was it a conscious decision to go from default EXPLICIT tagging
(X.509 Certificate definition module) to default IMPLICIT tagging
in the (X.509 CertificateExtensions definition module)?
Does anyone know the rationale for this?
This kind of thing really confuses implementors.
--a.