[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: specification language?

On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 Jueneman@gte.com wrote:

> >Taking X.509 and flatenning some of the most egregious levels of 
> >hierarchy could go a long way to getting things started, even if it just 
> >suggests some of the data types to use. 
> What do you mean by "hierarchy" in this context? Are you referring to the 
> hierarchy of CAs, or to something else?

Whooo - I can see that what I wrote could be confusing - I'd better 
clarify fast!

When I say, flatten hierachies, I'm referring to the data types used to 
build the certificate, and *NOT* any ceritificate chaining. For example, 
X.500 DNs are of the form 

name ::= sequence of rdn
rdn  ::= set of ava
ava  ::= sequence { attr string, value string}

which LDAP flattens to 

name ::= string -- where the raw X500 name is converted to ascii using 
                -- a few simple rules (see RFC1485)


They say in  online country             So which side are you on boys
There is no middle way                  Which side are you on
You'll either be a Usenet man           Which side are you on boys
Or a thug for the CDA                   Which side are you on?
  National Union of Computer Operatives; Hackers, local 37   APL-CPIO