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

Re: spki syntax

I think at this point we really have to stick with the s-expr
syntax. We're really way to far along in the process to change
anything at this point.


Carl Ellison writes:
> At 06:10 PM 4/1/98 +0100, Francesco Zambon wrote:
> >Reading the various drafts of the sdsi & spki efforts I noticed that  a
> >large part of the documents is devoted  to the definition of ad-hoc spki
> >syntax.
> >  The proposals are sometimes non omogeneus and  introduce special
> >notations for some specific subjects. As a consequence notations are not so
> >easy to read and understand. 
> >
> >In the following lines I examine   the adoption of well known syntaxes in
> >order easy the focus on spki semantics which is, at the end,  the real
> >problem.
> >
> >can you tellme if it is simply a matter of taste or  if importing well
> >defined but foreing notations can bring to positive enhancements to the
> >spki approach
> >
> >regards, Francesco Zambon
> Francesco,
> 	the choice between S-expression and XML has been raised before.  W3C wo
> like us to use XML.  It should be possible to write a translator from XML to 
> canonical S-expressions (just as Ron Rivest did the translator from full 
> S-expression to canonical).
> 	One of our choices was ease of parsing and canonical form achieves that
> (See the parsing code in the package I'm soon to release.)
> 	However, if XML becomes solid and stable, we may well see a move in the
> future to standardize on that.  At this point, they seem equivalent and so 
> we're sticking with S-expressions.
> 	The use of prolog is very interesting.  It should be easy to write a 
> 5-tuple reducer in prolog.  That would suggest <tag>s in prolog.
> 	However, the resulting certificates might be very hard for people to 
> understand.  (I remember the effort it took me to learn prolog, after years 
> of experience with many languages.)  OTOH, I don't want to discourage anyone 
> from investigating that possibility.  There could be some exciting 
> possibilities there.  Are you a proficient prolog programmer?  Do you want 
> to try that research project?
>  - Carl
> Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
> iQCVAwUBNSPRDhN3Wx8QwqUtAQFfYwP+Kk3/aL259XBrseZtBVgDJjjVqRwuJnbh
> 7b+pGhnxUoUBfK2nkzyeuHPbzQXweZw/f7fcYqfS1DkqY21NXVexfn0OlztxnJ6e
> 6Ai0nxVmm2MeZqEjhDJtMAh+efuqV/+gtNlwouj2UkGYA9rAjVk6hQm3/3ztny+5
> NeC+psxLVPA=
> =x6zj
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Carl M. Ellison  cme@cybercash.com   http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
> |CyberCash, Inc.                      http://www.cybercash.com/    |
> |207 Grindall Street  PGP 08FF BA05 599B 49D2  23C6 6FFD 36BA D342 |
> |Baltimore MD 21230-4103  T:(410) 727-4288  F:(410)727-4293        |
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+