[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: ;binary and userCertificate (Was: Private email ...)

To: Christopher Oliva <Chris.Oliva@entrust.com>
Subject: RE: ;binary and userCertificate (Was: Private email ...)
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:49:58 -0800
Cc: "'mcs@netscape.com'" <mcs@netscape.com>, Ramsay Ron <Ron.Ramsay@ca.com>, Christopher Oliva <Chris.Oliva@entrust.com>, LDAP BIS <ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org>
In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020221093314.06175768@127.0.0.1>
References: <BFB44293CE13C9419B7AFE7CBC35B9390120D6B0@sottmxs08.entrust .com>

At 10:20 AM 2002-02-21, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>Additionally, client
>developer's would have to be warned that some
>servers might use ;binary transfer even though
>the native string was requested.  As this is a
>behavior which the existing specification allowed
>(due to an ambiguity in the specification which,
>I hope, will be removed).

I mispoke.  The ambiguity I refer to above doesn't
does apply in the certificate case as the existing
specification mandates use of ;binary for certificate
syntaxes.  Hence, this warning would not be needed.

My apologies for any confusion caused by my error.

Kurt

References:
- RE: ;binary and userCertificate (Was: Private email ...)
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: RE: ;binary and userCertificate (Was: Private email ...)
Next by Date: RE: ;binary and userCertificate (Was: Private email ...)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread