<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Calibri">Here is an example: (please note: it's
a <u>fake one</u>, generated via an on-line fake address
generator)</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><tt>O=ACME SA</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>STREET=38, Place Charles de Gaulle, 76600 </tt><tt>Le
Havre</tt><tt>, </tt><tt>France</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>L=Le Havre</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>ST=Seine-Maritime</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>C=FR</tt><tt><br>
</tt></p>
</blockquote>
In the above example, streetAddress not only contains a street name
and house number, but other info as well, including the locality
(already specified in the separate localityName attribute) and the
country (already specified in the separate countryName attribute),
and a postal code that should probably be moved elsewhere (e.g. in
the specific postalCode attribute, if used).<br>
<br>
It is quite obvious, in the above example, that the address
information are consistent, overall. The question I am asking is: is
this way of populating streetAddress okay, from a compliance point
of view?<br>
<br>
Does anybody think that such a certificate should be regarded as
non-conformant to the BRs ?<br>
<br>
Adriano<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 18/05/2017 00:04, Geoff Keating ha
scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F963621A-737B-4D14-8F6E-79932039C1A1@apple.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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=""
moz-do-not-send="true">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<p class=""><font class="" face="Calibri">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-family: Serif">
Cordiali saluti,<br>
<br>
Adriano Santoni<br>
ACTALIS S.p.A.<br>
(Aruba Group)</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>