[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: encodings: do we need binary at all? -Reply
> Anyway, I think the use or non-use of ASN.1 is not the central issue. What is
> the issue is the production of a standard which fulfills the requirements
> whilst still being widely implementable. X.509 fails dismally in this respect
> not only through profligate use of obscure ASN.1 constructs, but through
> monstrous cross-referencing, and worst, through actual _unavailability_ of
> required information (such as X.509v3).
>
The X.509 version 3 definition is reproduced in the draft RFC on
Internet Public Key Infrastructure (the document produced by the PKIX
WG)
draft-ietf-pkix-part1-00.txt.
This is a good introduction document from the X.509
perspective for Certificate Infrastructure.
> A good Internet standard should not require me to spend thousands of pounds on
> other standards documents, nor weeks of my time reading them. In fact, in my
> view, an Internet standard should be implemented using nothing but RFCs (or
> at least draft standards). I realise this disqualifies SNMP ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben.
>
See above reference.
Graham
------------------------------------------------------
Graham Finlayson (PH) +1 408 567 5066
Worldtalk Corporation (FAX) +1 408 567 1501
Santa Clara CA 95054
Graham.Finlayson@Worldtalk.com