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.
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.