Re: Question about RFC 3125

Hello Russ,

I wonder why you have an interest, today, in a document that was written 
.... 18 years ago.

FYI, ETSI TC ESI sent for a public review until the August 31, 2019 a 
document about signature policies:

  * draft TS 119 172-2: Signature Policies; Part 2: XML format for
    signature policies, and
  * draft TS 119 172-3: Signature Policies; Part 3: ASN.1 format for
    signature policies

These documents are still downloadable from: 
http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/

More specifically from :

  * https://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/ESI-0019172-2v003-public.pdf


and

  * https://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/ESI-0019172-3v003-public.pdf


I prepared and sent 43 comments on Part 2 only, since IMO, it was not 
necessary anymore to define a signature policy using ASN.1.

Now, to answer your question, the intent in RFC 3125 was to have an OID, 
in order to have an unambiguous meaning, whatever the local language
of the signer and of the verifier would be.

Denis


> Section 3.4 of RFC 3125 talks about Commitment Rules, and it specifies the following structure:
>
>     CommitmentType ::= SEQUENCE {
>          identifier                      CommitmentTypeIdentifier,
>          fieldOfApplication      [0] FieldOfApplication OPTIONAL,
>          semantics               [1] DirectoryString OPTIONAL }
>
> However, CommitmentTypeIdentifier is never defined.  Is it an object identifier?
>
> Can anyone point to a public signature policy that uses the SignaturePolicy defined in RFC 3125?
>
> Russ
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix

_______________________________________________
pkix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix