Subject: help on X.509

From: kripal singh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:43:03 -0800 (PST)

where i will get detailes information on X.509
versions ie v1 v2 v3.
which rfc's define these versions.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

---

From: Ingmar Camphausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:51:25 +0100

> which rfc's define these versions.

X.509 is not defined in an RFC, it is an _ITU-T Recommendation_
(X-Series ;-). ('ITU' stands for 'International Telecommunication
Union'). That's why it is not available as an RFC. (But there's hope,
see below ;-). ITU recommendations can be bought from the ITU
(http://www.itu.int/publications/index.html) or might be obtainable
via your national ITU member institution.

As ITU-T's X.509 happens to be a joint document with the ISO (ITU-T
X.509 = ISO/IEC 9594-8), so it should be available from the ISO
(http://www.iso.ch) or your national standardization organization/
institution, too.

As Monica Ene-Pietrosanu wrote in her reply, the ASN.1 definition of
the X.509v3 certificate format is described in RFC2459, in appendices
A and B.

BTW:
The following paper might be a good text to read besides the
X.509/ISO 9594-8 standard itself: "X.509 Style Guide" by Peter Gutmann,
available via

     http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/x509guide.txt

Hope this helps,

	Ingmar

--
Ingmar Camphausen    PGP key: 'finger [email-masked]' or via keyserver
DFN-PCA (Policy CA, German Research Network)                [email-masked]
Vogt-Koelln-Str. 30                                    http://www.pca.dfn.de/
D-22527 Hamburg, Germany                       +49.40.42883-2262 / Fax: -2241

---

From: "Peter Lipp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:13:15 +0200

Discussing X.509-extensions with my students, the question on why these
extension-parts are defined that way came up and I wasn't sure what to
answer. Neither x509 nor 2459 say anything about the motivation behind that.
So the question is: Is there any practical value in setting the respective
skipcerts to something else than 0?

Peter