[security-dev 00575]: Re: Code review request: 6780416: New keytool commands/options: -gencert, -printcertreq, -ext

[Max (Weijun) Wang]

On Feb 18, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:

> > If you find the webrev too long, you might only review a part of it.
>
> sun/security/x509/SubjectInfoAccessExtension.java:
>
> This class looks fine for me except that the SubjectInfoAccessSyntax  
> is introduced from RFC3280, so I think it would be better change  
> line 50 from RFC5280 to RFC3280.

It was introduced in a previous RFC, but I think if the definition is  
not changed in a newer RFC, using the new RFC in the document is not a  
bad thing.

This is the process I would choose regarding old and new spec:

If you're writing something new, always try to use the new spec, and  
document it. For existing codes, if there's no enhancement in the new  
spec, simply update the document link in the codes to point to the new  
one. Otherwise, keep the old document link until the codes is updated  
to reflect the new features, and then update the document link.

Does this sound rational?

Thanks
Max

>
>
> Xuelei
>
> Max (Weijun) Wang wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> Can you take a review of this RFE?
>>
>>  6780416: New keytool commands/options: -gencert, -printcertreq, -ext
>>  bug: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6780416
>>  webrev: http://hgrev.appspot.com/show?id=3077
>>
>> The spec of the 3 new commands/options is inside the evaluation  
>> section of the bug report.
>>
>> The fix is mainly on KeyTool.java, with changes in Resources.java  
>> for l10n strings. Some X.509 files are changed to provide new  
>> constructor, new constants etc. A new class  
>> SubjectInfoAccessExtension.java is created for the extension. The  
>> KeyToolTest.java regression test are updated to cover the new  
>> commands/options.
>>
>> If you find the webrev too long, you might only review a part of it.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
>>
>