Re: Canonical form for signing S-expressions

[Paul Leyland <pcl@sable.ox.ac.uk>]

> Given these requirements and considerations, I have heard no technical
> arguments against the following proposal, and I suggest we go with it.
> 	-- represent all byte strings "verbatim" as e.g.
> 		#3:abc
> 	   with #,hexadecimal length,colon,byte-string 
> 	   (Using this format gives maximum efficiency for long byte strings.)
> 	-- represent lists with parentheses
> 	-- use no spaces to separate elements, and no fragmentation of
> 	   byte strings.
> 
> Example: The S-expression 
> 	(a b (cd e fgh)) 
> has canonical form for signing
> 	(#1:a#1:b(#2:cd#1:e#3:fgh))
> 
> Agreed?

Sounds good to me.

Paul

---

References:

• Canonical form for signing S-expressions
• From: rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ron Rivest)

---

• Prev by Date: canonical form for S-expressions / binary form
• Next by Date: Re: Canonical form for signing S-expressions
• Prev by thread: Canonical form for signing S-expressions
• Next by thread: Re: Canonical form for signing S-expressions
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread