>
> X509_4thEditionDraftV7.pdf (I'm reading my copy right now) still has
> Time defined as a choice of UTCTime and GeneralizedTime, and (on page
> 23), version is still to be set to v2 (1) or v3 (2). So that doesn't
> seem to have anything to do with the alleged X.509 v4...
>
> And considering t
Hodie XI Kal. Ian. MMV est, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker scripsit:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:00:30 -0500, Charles B
> Cranston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> zben> Having much the same results on my googling -- there is some
> zben> mention of a PKIPath extension, bu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:00:30 -0500, Charles B
Cranston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
zben> Having much the same results on my googling -- there is some
zben> mention of a PKIPath extension, but I did see a reference to
zben> an X509_4thEditionDraftV7.pdf which contains
Having much the same results on my googling -- there is some
mention of a PKIPath extension, but I did see a reference to
an X509_4thEditionDraftV7.pdf which contains dates roughly
simlar to the ones Richard quotes. There was a reference
to RFC3281 which talks about attribute certificates,
but the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:42:00 +0100 (CET), Martin
Kouril <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Kouril.Martin> Does somebody know how x509v4 certs differ from x509v3
Kouril.Martin> certs?
Until just now, I didn't know there was a v4 format. I'm not sure
there is, either. All I
This may not help you at all because I didn't know there were x509v4
certs, but version 3 I think implies the certificate has extensions
upon its base. I used this: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3280.txt for
something I was doing a while ago and if you skim parts you might find
references to the
