RE: SEIS: RE: Certificates, Directories, and Distinguished Names

[Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

>Stephen - in all your words you never seem to come to grips with the
>fact that X.509 is not ambigious in so far that it permits systems to be
>built without certificate extensions - and for those build such systems
>to determine by local means or imply what is a EE or a CA cert and what
>use that cert has (eg for message verification or cert verification)..
>X.509 - was written some years ago and it correctly (a a standard
>should) provided a transition path to the use of cert extensions.

Vome on Alan, we're talking about changes only with regard to X.509 v3.

>RFC 2459 came along some time later as a profile and just the fact that
>people are discussing the issue in 2459 and it is unclear - means there
>is a problem - in the Profile.

2459 did not come along much later than the adoption of X.509 v3. And, no,
there is not a profile problem, as too many previous messages have show in
detail.


<text not contributing to resolution of the issue deleted ...>

Steve