[Fwd: Re: encoding an X.509 certificate]

[Arshad Noor <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>]

The discussion on the IETF PKIX working group is starting to
border on the ridiculous.  I do hope that we can avoid these
kinds of situations/discussions.  More on this tomorrow.

Arshad

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: encoding an X.509 certificate
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:59 -0800
From: Arshad Noor <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>
Organization: StrongAuth, Inc.
To: ietf-pkix@imc.org
References: 
<OF6366D226.4B1510D8-ON852574FF.005D5170-85257500.00079556@us.ibm.com> 
<p06240514c5474e7c5e53@[130.129.30.0]> 
<b59232959040fd46001fc84228e0e7f5@doit.wisc.edu> 
<4921B1FD.5070800@cryptolog.com>

I trust you are being facetious, Julien.  If not, why bother with
standards efforts at all?  Lets all just cede the market to the
biggest players in the industry - no matter how ridiculous their
implementations may be - and call it a day.

Arshad Noor
StrongAuth, Inc.

Julien Stern wrote:
> 
> I think it really boils down to how big and powerful the company 
> implementing the validation is. If a BER encoded certificate (or a 
> certificate with a negative serial) is rejected by your implementation 
> AND if you can explain to your customers that YOU are doing the right 
> thing, then you are fine, otherwise, you'll have to patch your 
> implementation to accept the buggy certificates produced by a more 
> powerful entity than yours :)
>