Liaison statement
Liaison to IETF on the removal of upper bound in X.509
Additional information about IETF liaison relationships is available on the
IETF webpage
and the
Internet Architecture Board liaison webpage.
State | Posted |
---|---|
Submitted Date | 2007-10-05 |
From Group | ITU-T-SG-17 |
From Contact | Xiaoya Yang |
To Group | pkix |
To Contacts | Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Stefan Santesson <stefans@microsoft.com> |
Cc | Herbert Bertine <hbertine@alcatel-lucent.com> <tsbsg17@itu.int> <era@tdcadsl.dk> |
Response Contact | Xiaoya YANG <xiaoya.yang@itu.int> <tsbsg17@itu.int> |
Technical Contact | <era@tdcadsl.dk> |
Purpose | For action |
Deadline | 2008-03-01 Action Taken |
Attachments | (None) |
Body |
In relation to resolve a Defect Report, it appears to majority within the X.500 community to remove hard-coded length restriction whenever a DirectoryString is used. In response to developer demand in the early days of the standard X.520 contained a list of maximum lengths for a variety of string types, e.g., organizationalName. The values specified were non-normative. However, some implementers treated the values as normative. This has caused interoperability problem with implementations. We plan to remove the upper bounds specified in the standard. In particular we intend to eliminate the Upper Bounds for DirectoryString. The proposal does not change the definition of DirectoryString, but attribute definitions will look slightly different. As an example, street address may streetAddress{INTEGER:maxSize} ATTRIBUTE ::= { WITH SYNTAX DirectoryString {maxSize} EQUALITY MATCHING RULE caseIgnoreMatch SUBSTRINGS MATCHING RULE caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch ID id-at-streetAddress } That means that at implementation time, the upper limit may be added if wanted. Otherwise an unlimited string may be assumed. The proposal will not change the bits on the wire and we believe this is in line with what the PXIX group is already doing. We are forwarding this liaison to ensure that the PKIX group has no problem with this proposal. Please confirm that you have no objection to our removal of upper bounds. |