[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Base-64 proposal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Ron,
I understand how to do the 6-bit channel, but don't believe it's easy the
way you have defined it. In particular, if you have a verbatim string with
{} inside, the {} are clearly meant to be there and we don't get the 6-bit
channel.
There is also the problem that base64 might contain unbalanced ()s and
confuse a reader. The argument we had earlier in a small group about
whether base64 should be just for the whole certificate (or communication)
or for pieces of an object (e.g., modulus of a public key), resolved to the
latter based on the notion that a human might want to examine the object.
If the base64 can contain unbalanced ()s then the human can not examine it
meaningfully.
Therefore, I vote for having base64 be for complete objects (strings or
S-expressions) only -- and possibly even limiting it to the outer object.
- Carl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBM1aFRFQXJENzYr45AQHqpwP/VlStgWxg0G7DVjqV8yO1y5a8m3ZFIB2j
1k9NQw+eh+uFpwPoj+15FTK9M39HfaIMdf7gqyv4Zxs12iHgEYe4Y4ptOf+WXZbQ
+oM1bGZQiNHs5JIx/RZjKlTwsEGZcxdVsydI4eMCUWHBhVSbBEMWZqy2eQonuDFe
dt/31MGfxTk=
=0dll
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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: