Re: [xcbf] Interpretation of the CS under ballot

[Bancroft Scott <baos@oss.com>]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Phillip H. Griffin wrote:

> >Please confirm my interpretation of the XCBF CS document in the
> >following two areas:
> >
> >1) Use of BASE64
> >2) Use of CXER vs. BASIC-XER
> >
> >
> >As for (1), my interpretation is that  ***BASE-64 must NOT be used in
> >actual encodings and message exchanges***,  despite the sentence (line
> >1542) that mentions use of BASE-64 for certificates to  "minimize their
> >size when represented using XML markup"
>
> The document states clearly at line 1018 that for both the "crls" and
> "certificates" components of  type "SignedData",
>
> "This component shall contain a Base64 armored value. "
>
> This is the opposite of your interpretation.

Base64 is preferred to HEX because it yields a smaller encoding, but if we
further encode the Base64 encoded value in HEX we end up with a larger
encoding and with an application that is unnecessarily larger and more
complex than if HEX alone or Base64 alone were used.  Since XER and CXER
do not currently support Base64, the solution that yields the smallest
encoding and simplest application is HEX.

This double encoding in Base64 and HEX is a poor solution.  I see no
benefit to it.

Bancroft