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

Re: subjectAltName vs. CN in certificates

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 05:33 AM 3/7/2005, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>> This reminds me:
>>
>> Do implementations tend to obey this SHOULD (which is copied from
>> RFC 2830)?
>
> Well, s/the source/a source/ in the statement, yes.

In other words, no (the way I had read it).  What I meant to ask
was if they REFRAIN from checking CN if subjectAltName is present.
Good to know I had misunderstood.  I did think it was weird behaviour.

>> 3.1.6. Server Identity Check
>>     - If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present in the
>>       certificate, it SHOULD be used as the source of the server's
>>       identity.
>
> I rather just s/the source/a source/.

Yes.  Or even s/the source/one source/.

-- 
Hallvard