Subject: QC UID support must depart from RFC2459

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:25:52 -0000

>Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
>
>In version 2 X.509 certs there was a field added for unique subject and
>issuer IDs.  It was a bad idea, designed to address what appear to be some
>of the issues you alluded to above; nobody uses it.  I don't think we
>should include a similar facility in a QC.  You'll note that 2459
>explicitly disparages use of the v2 UIDs.

It is not hard to see why SEIS made a private profile given all the pointing fingers rubbish
with (totatlly unmotivated) SHALL NOT etc.

In order to support unique identity IDs in a CONFORMANT way there is no other way
(due to RFC2459) than to REDEFINE this in QC.

It cpuld be a new extension or reconsidered old one.  As "nobody" used the old one
I think a new one according to the ANSI/WIM-lines should be most appropriate.

Like OCTET STRING (1..16)

Anders

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:13:37 -0500

Anders,

If QCs deviate from 2459 (in its future, revised version), then there will
be no QC profile as an IETF standard.  I assume this is obvious, but just
wanted to inject a little reality check here.

Steve