Hello William,
I launched this message on UserID naming conventions to add 'some'
type of structure to the existing UserID 'packet' field. The MUA -
User I/F would not be required to 'conform', but an intelligent
client for corp. use, might want more structure (with some guidlines).
I would NOT create a new UserID Field. My initial objective here, is
to measure the level of interest in adding additional convenstions.
If there is interest, I'll submit a more detailed explanation.
CB
At 08:12 AM 8/29/97 -0400, William H. Geiger III wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In
<3(_dot_)0(_dot_)2(_dot_)32(_dot_)19970828140951(_dot_)00991a40(_at_)mail(_dot_)pgp(_dot_)com>,
on 08/28/97
at 04:09 PM, Charles Breed <cbreed(_at_)pgp(_dot_)com> said:
Open-PGP certificates should support both...
1) Identity
2) Autherization
wrt Identity, Open-PGP should have the ability to handle other types of
naming conventions than just the usual RFC822. In order to preserve
previous implementations, we should make a new packet type that would be
the new Generic Name packet.
The UserID field (currently a 255 charater octet string)
could handle other types, such as...
OpenPGPGenericName ::= CHOICE {
otherName [0] INSTANCE OF OTHER-NAME,
rfc822Name [1] 255 Octet String,
dNSName [2] IA5String,
x400Address [3] ORAddress,
directoryName [4] Name,
ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName,
uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String,
iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING,
registeredID [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER }
the OCTET STRING containing the IP-Address
"123.124.125.126" should be coded like:
'7B7C7D7E'H
| | | |
123 | | |
124 | |
125 |
126
Hi Charles,
I am a little confused by your proposal.
Are you sugessting that:
A) The User Interface should support creating the various Identifiers for
the user.
B1) These Identifiers should be stored in the current UserID field or B2)
These Identifiers should be stored in a new Identifier field in addition
to the UserID field or B3) Theses Identifiers should be stored in a new
Identifier field as a replacement to the UserID field.
C) Should there be a Identifier type field (0-F) or (00-FF)?
Also should the RFC contain details on the formats of the various
Identifiers or just pointers to other RFC's?
Do you plan on any of these Identifiers to be manditory?
If you could please elaborate on the use and implemntation of thes
Identifier fields.
Thanks,
- --
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0
Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000
iQCVAwUBNAbBFY9Co1n+aLhhAQEwOQQAi/ZN/r5BA7ExoVrQotrBtcJBjTCzDZau
U+bxqTDqnKGYXbP0htuXuYyfmDs6itwm1lHDwxBMGmvCYPpm/bqwCOfb3njou6Bu
C0CppYuvLQyYezB9BifQI56MB8AntQdDmHEWIV+FEPagGBTgDoNLLK1MdIwUl654
W2o+kBqW19o=
=XFbZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----