You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello,
I've noticed that some of the standard X509 Extensions defined in RFC5280 aren't implemented as Builders in `:x509::extensions'.
Here is an overview of the current status:
I think that support for more commonly used extensions like CRL Distribution Points or Name Constraints would be really great, because it reduces the margin for error drastically by reducing the need to call x509::X509Extension::new_nid.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello,
I've noticed that some of the standard X509 Extensions defined in RFC5280 aren't implemented as Builders in `:x509::extensions'.
Here is an overview of the current status:
I think that support for more commonly used extensions like CRL Distribution Points or Name Constraints would be really great, because it reduces the margin for error drastically by reducing the need to call
x509::X509Extension::new_nid
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: