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

Re: going back to stone axes

To: cme@cybercash.com (Carl Ellison)
Subject: Re: going back to stone axes
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 06:42:18 +0100
Cc: spki@c2.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:56:30 EST." <v02140b08ad58e654b8ff@[204.254.34.231]>
Sender: owner-spki@c2.org

Carl,
at the moment, I'm on the sidelines of this debate, and am also pretty
convinced that it's seriously preventing SPKI from doing serious work,
so chipping in was probably a mistake.

But just my $0.02:
I had an experience where the fact that ASN.1 strings are by default
infinite-sized made us add SIZE fields to a specification. Which then
showed us that we didn't have consensus on the upper limit; some people
thought 256 bytes; other thought at least 1 Kbyte.

That's the only reason why....

   Harald A

References:

Re: going back to stone axes

From: cme@cybercash.com (Carl Ellison)

Prev by Date: Re: going back to stone axes
Next by Date: Re: proposed certificate format
Prev by thread: Re: encodings, character sets, general requirements
Next by thread: Re: going back to stone axes
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread