[Smcwg-public] Presence of pseudonym based on commonName value in legacy profile

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

On 17/2/2023 4:44 μ.μ., Christophe Bonjean via Smcwg-public wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I’d like to clarify the presence requirements of the subject:pseudonym 
> field, in combination with the subject:commonName field.
>
> According to section 7.1.4.2.2 “Subject distinguished name fields” the 
> subject:commonName field can contain the value of the 
> subject:pseudonym field.
>
> Note 2 of 7.1.4.2.5 states: “Legacy Generation profiles *MAY omit* the 
> subject:givenName, subject:surname, and subject:pseudonym attributes 
> and include *only* the subject:commonName as described in Section 
> 7.1.4.2.2(a).”
>
> If the commonName field can contain the values of the pseudonym field, 
> but the pseudonym field MAY be omitted, this seems a bit conflicting.
>
> Perhaps we should refer to “Pseudonym” instead of “subject:pseudonym” 
> as the permitted values for commonName in 7.1.4.2.2 a?
>
> Christophe
>

Hi Christophe,

I agree with your observation and proposed solution.


Thanks,
Dimitris.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Smcwg-public mailing list
> Smcwg-public at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/smcwg-public
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20230218/6faf40cd/attachment-0001.html>