Re: Revised Certificate Extensions Amendment Text

[Warwick Ford <wford@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, it was a conscious decision.  The motivations, as I recall them, were
to produce optimal encodings with simplest notation, and to align with the
prevalent direction adopted by modern ASN.1 protocols.  (In fact the more
modern AUTOMATIC tagging was considered also, but rejected because it would
necessitate ASN.1 1994 tools.)

To reduce the confusion, I suggest that a clear CAUTION statement be
included in PKIX Part 1.

Warwick

At 05:31 PM 12/19/96 -0800, Anil R. Gangolli wrote:
>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.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Warwick Ford, VeriSign, Inc., One Alewife Center, Cambridge, MA 02140
   wford@verisign.com; Tel: (617)492 2816 x225; Fax: (613)661 0716
---------------------------------------------------------------------