Re: personal identifiers

[egardner@xxxxxxxxx (Ella P. Gardner)]

Rob:

uniqueIdentifier in X.520 has the same object identifier as
X.500UniqueIdentifier in RFC 2256, paragraph 5.46. They added the X.500
prefix to distinguish it from the uniqueIdentifier defined in RFC 1274.

Ella

At 08:28 AM 12/18/98 -0500, Robert Malick wrote:
>Excerpts from mail: 18-Dec-98 Re: Qualified Certificates .. Stefan
>Santesson@accurat (1834*)
>
>> We decided during Orlando to go with dnQualifier instead of serialNumber.
>> It seams that there is a majority supporting that choice.
>
>> /Stefan
>
>> At 04:14 PM 12/11/98 -0500, Ella P. Gardner wrote:
>> >Some folks don't like the fact that the X.500 standard unique
identifier is
>> >a bit string. That's why we used dnQualifier in the Allied Communications
>> >Publication 133.
>> >
>> >Ella
>
>Could someone deny or confirm that what was once "uniqueIdentifier" in
>X.500 is now "X500UniqueIdentifier". I belive the name was changed and
>the OID is the same as it was thus no conflict.
>
>We are planning to use "uniqueIdentifier" as is defined in RFC 1274 (and
>LIPS) in our directory services (as future certificates) and thought
>that this point was mute now.
>
>With the latest discussions, I'm not sure now.
>
>	Rob
>
>