[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: X.509 certificate and its subject name field
- To: Shyh-Wei Luan <luan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: X.509 certificate and its subject name field
- From: Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 11:26:43 -0400
- Cc: ssl-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <>
- References: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> "Re: X.509 certificate andits subject name field" (May 29, 6:08pm) Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> "Re: X.509 certificate and its subject name field" (May 28 7:20pm) <> <> <>
Shyh-Wei,
Well, at least we are seeing some agreement. My criticisms about
the lack of detail re cert paths and CA names in your examples are intended
to point out that management of ACLs based on cert usage is not trivial, a
perception that I feared might be conveyed by the emphasis on SUIDs as ACL
entries. Also note that some of the examples cited about changes to DNs
(that make them less desirable as stable IDs) were based on corporate name
changes, which would translate into ACL changes anyway, if we agree that
the CA DN is represented on the ACL.
Steve