[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        |