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

*To*: rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu*Subject*: Re: Canonical form for signing S-expressions*From*: Paul Leyland <pcl@sable.ox.ac.uk>*Date*: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:58:53 +0100 (BST)*Cc*: spki@c2.net*In-Reply-To*: <199704141241.AA00624@swan.lcs.mit.edu> (rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu)*Sender*: owner-spki@c2.net

> 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

**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):