Subject: Types of CDP in RFC2459

From: "Eissa, Mohamed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:12:48 -0800

Hi all,
In RFC2459 (Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL
Profile)  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2459.txt
4.2.1.14 CRL Distribution Points 
	The CRL distribution points extension identifies how CRL information
is obtained. The extension SHOULD be non-critical, but this profile
recommends support for this extension by CAs and applications. Further
discussion of CRL management is contained in section 5. 
	If the cRLDistributionPoints extension contains a
DistributionPointName of type URI, the following semantics MUST be assumed:
the URI is a pointer to the current CRL for ...

Can someone please help me to list what are the other possible types for CDP
if it is not a URI?

Mohamed Eissa
Intel of Canada

---

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 19:14:47 -0500

RFC 2459 includes the syntax:

    CRLDistPointsSyntax ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF DistributionPoint

    DistributionPoint ::= SEQUENCE {
         distributionPoint       [0]     DistributionPointName OPTIONAL,
         reasons                 [1]     ReasonFlags OPTIONAL,
         cRLIssuer               [2]     GeneralNames OPTIONAL }

       GeneralNames ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF GeneralName

       GeneralName ::= CHOICE {
            otherName                       [0]     OtherName,
            rfc822Name                      [1]     IA5String,
            dNSName                         [2]     IA5String,
            x400Address                     [3]     ORAddress,
            directoryName                   [4]     Name,
            ediPartyName                    [5]     EDIPartyName,
            uniformResourceIdentifier       [6]     IA5String,
            iPAddress                       [7]     OCTET STRING,
            registeredID                    [8]     OBJECT IDENTIFIER}

Each of these name forms can be used.  For example, directoryName points to 
an entry in an X.500 directory.

In the PKIX WG we did not make any statements about name forms associated 
with non-Internet protocols.  The standards groups associated with those 
protocols should construct such profiles, if approriate.

Russ