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

Re: Apology and requirements

To: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Apology and requirements
From: Bruce Zambini <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 10:25:01 -0500 (EST)
Cc: spki@c2.org
In-Reply-To: <9603022211.AA05363@sulphur.osf.org>
Sender: owner-spki@c2.org

On Sat, 2 Mar 1996, Rich Salz wrote:

>     1 Not limited to ASCII.  I will have performance constraints
>       where a cert must fit in a very small UDP-style packet and
>       the typical 30% inflation isn't acceptable.

Hmmm... maybe it should be suggested that programs be capable of handling 
either binary or ASCII armored certificates. I can't imagine that small 
bit of extra code killing most apps.

Obviously, in performance-critical apps, or with a 7 bit connection, only 
one type need be supported, but general purpose apps should in fact 
support multiple purposes.

Jon Lasser
----------
Jon Lasser (410)494-3072                         - Obscenity  is a crutch  for
jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu                            inarticulate motherfuckers.
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D)               - Fuck the CDA.

References:

Apology and requirements

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Criteria for Specification Languages
Next by Date: Re: Other ideas for certificates -Reply
Prev by thread: Apology and requirements
Next by thread: ANSI X9 version of X.509, and Draft Amendment available on request.
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread