Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 03:00:34PM -0500, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 11:36 AM -0800 3/24/04, Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:
> >I hope this does not preclude ID_KEY_ID from carrying UTF-8 in an
> >opaque way. I think this is what Paul Koning mentioned in an earlier mail.
> >
> 
> For the reasons cited earlier, I think it is a bad idea to carry 
> structured data like UTF-8 in what is described as an opaque octet 
> string. there is no reason to assume that there will be management 
> interfaces to facilitate entry of the data in a compatible fashion, 
> even without the encoding options that Paul has pointed out.

Can you clarify whence the name of this ID?

I think that the name, ID_KEY_ID, is consistent with use of the public
key of the cert as the ID value.  But just because the name seems to
imply that doesn't mean that that was the original intention.

Nico
--