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

Re: going back to stone axes

To: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: going back to stone axes
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:39:10 +0100
Cc: baos@oss.oss.com (Bancroft Scott), spki@c2.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 1996 07:51:35 EST." <199602261251.HAA10231@jekyll.piermont.com>
Sender: owner-spki@c2.org

Perry,
note that when you did the data format you described, you did some assumptions:
- By choosing 32-bit number of seconds from 1/1 1970, you decided that
  dates before 1970 or after 2135 were not interesting.
- By choosing a length-delimited string format, you chose to limit the length of strings.

I find that ASN.1 is sometimes useful to document these assumptions. It is also sometimes
useful to hide them - it's just a different set of constraints from C.

          Harald A

Follow-Ups:

Re: going back to stone axes

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>

References:

Re: going back to stone axes

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>

Prev by Date: No Subject
Next by Date: X.509
Prev by thread: Re: going back to stone axes
Next by thread: Re: going back to stone axes
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread