[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Thoughts on the draft
>There appear to be two camps forming on this topic. If we support both,
>then there would be two forms of certificate which wouldn't interoperate.
>The issue is which form is the source byte stream for the certificate's
>signature. If there are native ASCII certs, then the ASCII is the source
>(ala SDSI). If the binary is native, then the binary is the source.
>
>I've met people who want to work in nothing but ASCII. I've met others who
>want to work in nothing but binary.
>
>Opinions on how to proceed?
I think it would be a mistake to allow both forms. There needs to be a
cannonical form for signatures. For example, an EBCDIC computer would need
to translate an EBCDIC certificate to ASCII before signing it. For ASCII,
we need to specify the parity bit (as zero).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | "Lone Star" - My personal | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506 | choice for best movie of | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | 1996 | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Follow-Ups: