[Servercert-wg] Ballot SC17 version 3: Alternative registration numbers for EU certificates

Tomas Gustavsson tomas.gustavsson at primekey.com
Mon Apr 8 07:01:20 MST 2019

You're right when I think of it.
If it wasn't specific for EUPSD2AuthorizationNumber something else (not
the comment I gave) might be worth considering, but being specific for
EUPSD2AuthorizationNumber my comment does not make sense and my comment
is void.


On 2019-04-08 15:51, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:42 AM Tomas Gustavsson via Servercert-wg
> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>     Is it possible to have the optional element last? To keep things as easy
>     to understand for laymen as possible. Since it's a new field with a
>     sequence the order should not matter.
> I'm... not really sure I follow that suggestion. Could you help me
> understand how it would help? Positioning the optional field last, if
> anything, seems to encourage implementations to do the very thing they
> shouldn't do - which is rely on context from the outer element when
> decoding the inner element. We'd still need it tagged, as the only
> 'safe' way to leave it untagged would be to have a non-printable string
> following.
> I may be missing something, though, so I'm hoping you could explain the
> benefit? 

More information about the Servercert-wg mailing list