Subject: Re: [TSP/RFC3161] PKIFailureInfo values

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:31:05 +1300 (NZDT)

Ricardo Barroso <[email-masked]> writes:

>In my opinion even maintaining here the original RFC sentence, it doesn't 
>restrict that you can't have for example a comma between more than one 
>reason - that's still a valid string/"reason text" I suppose.
>Do you agree with that? Do you think that a system that does that will
>not be compliant?

My concern was that people are going to try and apply all sorts of 
kabbalistic interpretations to the text ("The placing of the comma in 
the second sentence implies that the author meant X, and therefore your
implementation is wrong and mine is right").  Saying something like
"This is a free-format text field containing information about the
error or errors" would convey the intended meaning without implying
that there's some particular required way to do it.

Peter (who has just finished trying to mediate a debate among two 
       software companies about how any angels you can fit in a DN:
       "Your software is broken, fix it!" <-> "Our DNs are more 
        standards-conformant than yours").

---

From: Ricardo Barroso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:48:25 +0000

>that there's some particular required way to do it.
I understand and totally agree with you, Peter. And that's a good 
sentence, I think.

>        standards-conformant than yours").
Lol, sometimes is hard to do our work! :)

Cheers,
Ricardo Barroso

MULTICERT S.A.
www.multicert.com <http://www.multicert.com>