Subject: Re: Conclusion - Biometric inclusion in QC

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:06:39 +0200

At 11:09 AM 3/31/99 +0200, Denis Pinkas wrote:
<snip>
>I do not believe you met any Dennis Pinkas, maybe you met a Denis Pinkas.

Sorry for that !

<snip>
>> And don't forget that putting a hash of a picture in a QC, is already a
>> valid option. For example you can use this hash as a unique identifier
>> (issued by the CA) and put it in the dNQualifier attribute. Then include an
>> attributeSemantics OID defining this property. And you are all set !!
>
>If I understand correctly, you mean that we have some means to have an
extension,
>... but we still need to define that extension.
>This is exactly what I am advocating for.
>

Not exactly an extension. We define a new "PersonalData" field stored in
the otherName field in the subjectAltName extension. All this is found in
section 3.2.1 of the draft. 

This field has the capability you are asking for. i.e. holding a hash of a
photo, plus the fact that you can communicate to the relying party that it
does.

/Stefan

>Regards,
>Denis

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Santesson                <[email-masked]>
Accurata Systemsäkerhet AB      http://www.accurata.se
Slagthuset                      Tel. +46-40 108588              
211 20  Malmö                   Fax. +46-40 150790              
Sweden                        Mobile +46-70 5247799

PGP fingerprint: 89BC 6C79 5B3D 591B 8547  1512 7D11 DBF4 528F 29A0
-------------------------------------------------------------------