[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: invalid syntax when teletexstring
First, sorry for having placed this thread in private, that was
unintentional (maybe I should reconsider using a "reply to all" by
default). Group added.
2011/7/29 Howard Chu <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Erwann ABALEA wrote:
>> In fact, I know such a CA that was generated some months ago, with a
>> very large audience, and whose certificates are to be stored in an
>> LDAP structure. Czech Republic passport CA certificate. If you want to
>> know how it's used, and by who, we can talk about it in private, or
>> you can look at www.icao.int, search for Doc9303 documents, PKD
>> structure, etc. (In fact, I didn't know of this limitation, and I'll
>> look forward its impact in integrating the Czech certificates in the
>> OpenLDAP structures we sell and deploy).
>> I agree that UTF8String would have been a much better choice, but
>> X.509 doesn't prevent the use of T61String.
>> In the meantime, some products still don't support UTF8String in
>> certificates, a Novell proxy product (I don't remember its exact name)
>> is an example I encountered recently.
> If that's the case, what solutions do you propose? We could accept T61String
> if it only uses characters that are present in 7-bit ASCII of course. But
> once you venture into 8-bit and extended/accented characters all bets are
I'll need to grab this CA certificate back. I was asked to give my
opinion on whether it was to be considered valid or not.
Despite the fact that T61String is clearly deprecated in
RFC5280/3280/2459, and that ICAO has chosen to base their certificate
profile on RFC3280 (a bad choice), asking for a country to change its
root CA cert signing all its passports because that doesn't follow
rules I personally don't adhere to is difficult and counterproductive.
I wasn't the only one to have this idea, and it was accepted. I'm 99%
sure 7 bits didn't suffice. The remaining 1% will be fixed as soon as
I find the certificate.
Do you have any document or pointer to understand the task of
converting to/from T.61, and incompatible character sets you talked
about? I Googled for this, but I'm not sure of what I found (what I
found reminds me of old character sets we used many years ago in
France for the Minitel, with G1/G2 character groups, etc, not that far
from VT consoles).
The ICAO group or PKD Board could ask the Czechs to produce X.509
certificates with UTF8String encoding for the issuerName's fields,
it's perfectly valid by X.520 rules (as long as the content is
semantically identical, differently encoded strings are equal, as you
know), but that's asking for implementors to produce completely
compliant code. And such code will have to be clearly written by
dozens of staffs in the world, and used by autonomous devices reading
passports, etc. A big bet. Given what I see in different countries'
certificates, we're far from this.
I'll try to take a look tomorrow.