Subject: Re: Trying again: Unsettled topics, Qualified Certificates.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:11:10 -0400

At the risk of repeating myself, here is my proposed policy qualifier
syntax for financial amounts, which could be used for purchase limit whenever
the specific policy qualifier OID indicates purchase limit:

FinancialAmount     ::=  SEQUENCE
{    fieldID        [30] IMPLICIT OBJECT IDENTIFIER OPTIONAL,
     currency  PrintableString,               -- e.g. "USD" for U.S. Dollar
     CHOICE    {
          amount         NumericString,       -- usually including a decimal
point
          value          INTEGER         -- no need for floating-point
     }
}

     It would be perfectly reasonable to define "currency" as:
     currency  CHOICE    {
          currencyName        PrintableString,     -- e.g. "USD" for U.S. Dollar
          currencyID          Currency   -- integer from ISO 4217
     }

     with Currency defined as in the Novell proposal, copied below:

Currency ::= INTEGER (1..999) -- currency denomination from ISO 4217
-- US Dollar (USD) is  840.
-- Euro (EUR) is 978.

          Tom Gindin

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:31:57 +0200

Tom (and Hoyt),

I like the logic in using a policy qualifier.
There has however been raised a number of problems with that. This is mainly:

1) A qualifier can't be marked critical (eventhough I fail to see the
problem with that)
2) RFC 2459 strongly recommends the use of qualifiers should be restricted
to use of 2 defined qualifier types and non of them seams to fit the
reliance limit case. The best one of them is aimed for textual messages and
does not suit automatic processing.

Viewed from issue 2 it doesn't seam that your proposal haromize with the
recommendation in RFC 2459. I.e. Your proposal doesn't fit into the
recommended types.

Do you have any comment to these problems.

/Stefan