[cabfpub] streetAddress

[Gervase Markham]

On 18/05/17 07:25, Adriano Santoni via Public wrote:
> 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?

I think that if anyone is rendering this data somewhere for someone to
read, it's going to lead to a bad rendering with duplicated data. So
it's a bad idea.

> Does anybody think that such a certificate should be regarded as
> non-conformant to the BRs ?

As someone else noted, the BRs define a bunch of address fields, which
implies to me that each contains only the data that it names, and other
data goes in the other appropriately-named fields. So yes.

Gerv