[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)
Simon
---
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
References: