Subject: Questions on Section 5.2 and 7.1

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 14:38:03 -0500

Maybe I am missing something here. 

Section 5.2 spend a lot of time describing the misuse of the GeneralString
and how some vendors have used unescaped UTF-8 etc. 

Section 7.1 then describes the realm name, as thorough it is IA5string only.
But what then happens to those realms names which are not IA5string? 
I am assuming they need to be a realm type of other. 

The TransitedEncoding has tr-type and only one type is defined, 
DOMAIN-X500-COMPRESS. This would imply that "other" names can not
be added to the Transited field. 

When we get to PKCROSS, and the CA name is going to be treated like a realm,
or needs to be added to the transited field, will we have problems trying 
to get it into the transited field? 
Will we need another tr-type to include DOMAIN, X500 and other? 
I am assuming we will have to address some of these issues with extensions. 

Do we need a statement in Clarifications, that transited cross realm
is defined only with domain and X500 style realm names? Or is it already there?

-- 

 Douglas E. Engert  <[email-masked]>
 Argonne National Laboratory
 9700 South Cass Avenue
 Argonne, Illinois  60439 
 (630) 252-5444

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:51:52 -0400

>>>>> "Douglas" == Douglas E Engert <[email-masked]> writes:
    Douglas> The TransitedEncoding has tr-type and only one type is
    Douglas> defined, DOMAIN-X500-COMPRESS. This would imply that
    Douglas> "other" names can not be added to the Transited field.

    Douglas> When we get to PKCROSS, and the CA name is going to be
    Douglas> treated like a realm, or needs to be added to the
    Douglas> transited field, will we have problems trying to get it
    Douglas> into the transited field?  Will we need another tr-type
    Douglas> to include DOMAIN, X500 and other?  I am assuming we will
    Douglas> have to address some of these issues with extensions.
No, it's just that such names will very likely not compress in the TR
encoding.  CThat particular TR encoding type is general, but only
attempts to compress domain and x500 style realms.

Note that we probably cannot add a new TR type to the spec without
running a significant risk of violating extensibility interop
constraints.  You must guarantee that the server will be able to
understand the TR type.