<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 17 May 2017, at 3:08 am, Adriano Santoni via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""><p class=""><font face="Calibri" class="">All, would like some opinions about the
following question:</font></p>
Can it be considered "okay" if the streetAddress component of an OV
(or EV) certificate Subject contains some more information than it's
strictly specified (or, more exactly, exemplified) in ITU-T X.520 ?<br class="">
<br class="">
ITU-T X.520 (aka ISO/IEC 9594-6) reads: <br class="">
"The Street Address attribute type specifies a site for the local
distribution and physical delivery in a postal address,<br class="">
i.e., the street name, place, avenue and house number"<br class="">
<br class="">
For instance, how would you consider a street Address that, in
addition to street name and house number, also contains a country
name: compliant? non-compliant? of dubious compliance?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Can you give an example?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I think the most likely outcome is that the address is simply wrong—not non-compliant, but not referring to the intended or actual address. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>In many cases with complex or weird postal addresses, it is probably preferable to use the postalAddress component instead, which gives you 6 lines (alas limited to 30 characters each).</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>