But the c= case isnt semantics; its clearly syntax. The other are clearly semantics which some local policies might except, others not. ISO calls out this case in bold type, as it were. Ive no idea - as a computer - what GB is, only that it is or is not in my set of allowed values, whereas fr is not.
An additional problem is that the list of country names, while quiescent, it is not completely static. Updating all the software in the field upon the creation of a new country would be a problem. I'd hate to have software tell me that my newly created country was invalid:-)
Whatever CAs and NAs and RAs do, Im asking the question, what do conformant parsing modules do!? Whether a conformance requirement is sensible, is however, a perfectly legitimate question.
Strict conformance (hard-coding ISO3166 values) is a time bomb. Aside from ensuring that the country name value is a two-character printable string, I would leave conformance checking to the issuing authorities.
Does anyone know of a conformance test in which syntax c=fr would be rejected, or analagous cases in other type=value schemes using contrained value notations?
According to my ancient, draft copy of X.520, country names are two-character PrintableStrings taken from ISO3166 and "the matching rule for values of this type is the same as for caseIgnoreString." My take on this is that country names are of type PrintableString as opposed to caseIgnoreString in the first place to preclude the use of T61String. c=fr should work. Mark
binwIAVhd1Hx0.bin
Description: application/moss-signature