[x500standard] Re: Revocation list definitions
- From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:02:18 +0100
On 25/04/2014 15:45, Erik Andersen wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> As to issue 2: My point is that different parts of X.509 say different
> things, which means that we have to make a decision either way.
agreed
>
> Erik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Chadwick
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 4:37 PM
> To: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; SG17-Q11
> Subject: [x500standard] Re: Revocation list definitions
>
>
>
> On 25/04/2014 14:59, Erik Andersen wrote:
>> David Cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Contrary to what the defect report says, X.509 intentionally defined
>> CRL to include revocation lists that covered public-key certificates
>> and revocation lists that covered attribute certificates,"
>>
> There are two issues here
> 1. The use of the acronym CRL. To what does it refer 2. Whether a single
> revocation list can include both PKCs and ACs.
>
> David are you addressing the first point only, or both points? If the
> latter, what are you saying about point 2.
>
> regards
>
> David
> -----
> www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500
> Directory Standard.
>
> -----
> www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500
> Directory Standard.
>
>
-----
www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500 Directory
Standard.
Other related posts:
