Subject: 3280bis: OtherName "health warning"

From: "Sean P. Turner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:32 -0600

Should we add a note in the Subject Alternative Name section to say 
something like - when an othername form is created matching rules for 
said othername name form must also be specified?

spt

---

From: Tom Gindin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:21:13 -0500

Sean:

        The only OTHER-NAME form that PKIX has created, AFAIK, is 
Permanent Identifier.  Ways of specifying matching rules inside a PI were 
specified in earlier drafts but then taken out in the approved version. 
However, there are still rules on matching specified for each major case 
(assigner present and absent, identifierValue present and absent). 

                Tom Gindin

"Sean P. Turner" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
03/09/2005 02:38 PM
 
        To:     PKIX <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        3280bis: OtherName "health warning"

spt

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:31:07 -0500

OIDs have been assigned for five in the PKIX arc, but one of them has been 
deprecated.  I know that Kerberos is assigning another one.

See http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/pkix-oid.asn

Russ

---

From: "Sean P. Turner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:41:40 -0600

I'm NOT advocating adding any othername forms to 3280bis.  I'm asking if 
we should put in a health warning that says something to the effect of 
"if you want applications to do any kind of name matching based on your 
othername field you'd better define them in your document."

spt