[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [hallam@w3.org: Re: [ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu: Re: SDSI syntax] ]

At  2:18 PM 4/30/96 -0400, Ron Rivest wrote:
>Phill Hallam-Baker suggests that one should sign a "canonical" form
>of an object.  I fully agree.  Which form it is doesn't matter too much.
>The SDSI paper proposes representing all octet-strings in verbatim form,
>and then hashing that.  I think it is best if the quantity to be hashed
>is easily derivable from the INTERNAL representation; then the EXTERNAL
>(ASCII) representation can be redefined to suit one's taste or needs.

Do we run the risk of needing to decide byte sex issues (AKA bigendian vs.
littleendian)?  Or does everything we are interested in hash the same on
both kinds of machines?  (I assume there are no machines that have 60 bit
words, 7 bit characters etc. of interest anymore.)

Bill Frantz       | The CDA means  | Periwinkle  --  Computer Consulting
(408)356-8506     | lost jobs and  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA