[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Names of algorithms
At 12:33 AM 4/2/97 EST, Ron Rivest wrote:
>
>Relative to Carl's questions (below):
>
>* We did talk about an "output format" portion of the name as well, but
> after some reflection, I decided that we probably don't need that. The
> public key algorithm can specify its output as a byte string, or as an
> order list of byte strings, and that should be enough. We can add
> a fourth parameter later for output format if necessary.
We should let Burt chime in on that since it was his suggestion, right?
>* I think what I am talking about is what you call the public-key block,
> which is what the old SDSI principal has become. It specifies the
> algorithm names, as well as the parameters it needs. Perhaps I should
> have called the note something else, since there is ambiguity between
> a specific algorithm (with all keys and other parameters specified) and
> an algorithmic scheme (with parameters yet to be filled in).
That's fine with me. As I said, I like your format -- just not the
title you gave it. To me, you're specifying a key.
> (public-key (sha1) (pkcs1) (rsa (n &15)(e &03)))
Why bother putting the strings sha1 and pkcs1 in parens? When we parse this
to C structures, that would imply an unnecessary hop to a subordinate
structure in order to find the byte string.
- Carl
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison cme@cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ |
|207 Grindall Street PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
References: