Fw: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec

["Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>]

How can that be so?  If you have an OCTET STRING component encoded in Base64
inside the main message, then it is going to violate the canonical XER rule
that only hex characters are allowed.  Base64 characters are outside of that
character set.

Ed

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Larmouth" <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
> To: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
> Cc: "xcbf" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec
>
>
> > Provided it is expressed properly (a bit contorted, but you specify the
> > octets of the octet string as the octets of the UTF8 encoding of the
> > BASE64 encoding of the DER encoding) then there is no problem.
> >
> > The text will be precise, and will not violate the CXER spec.  (The
> > OCTET STRINGs in question are *not* defined as "(CONTAINING .....)".  If
> > they had been, that would have complicated matters.  But they are
> > unconstrained OCTET STRINGs, so I don't see a problem.
> >
> > I can handle the text for that OK, I think.
> >
> > John L
> >
> >
> > Ed Day wrote:
> > > It was my understanding from Phil that CXER could not be used for the
> entire
> > > message because the Base-64 encoded DER components would violate the
> CXER
> > > rules for OCTET STRING encodings.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "John Larmouth" <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
> > > To: "Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>
> > > Cc: "xcbf" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 12:52 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>The document is currently inconsistent, Ed.  Do we intend CXER
encoding
> > >>for everything excpet DER, or use of basic XER at the outer-level?
> > >>
> > >>I think minimum changes mean we do everything with CXER (and DER), and
> > >>remove any text that implies the opposite - probably only a sentence
or
> > >>two, at most.
> > >>
> > >>I will produce a document to that effect in the next few days.
> > >>
> > >>John L
> > >>
> > >>Ed Day wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I think given this late date that changes should be kept to a
minimum.
> > >>
> > > What
> > >
> > >>>is there has already been approved for the most part.  Only a few
> tweaks
> > >>>describing how the Base64 encoding is to be accomplished should be
> > >>>necessary.  I think any big changes need to be deferred to the next
> > >>
> > > version.
> > >
> > >>>Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>>Ed Day
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>>From: "John Larmouth" <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
> > >>>To: <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
> > >>>Cc: "xcbf" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >>>Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 4:26 PM
> > >>>Subject: Re: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>To reply to my own message:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>John Larmouth wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>I understand that you should be getting notification of that upload
> > >>>>>automatically, but it has not come back to *me* yet.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>It still has not come (but I understand that others have got it).
> Maybe
> > >>>>the person posting the document does not get the noticiation?  But
> this
> > >>>>is not the first time that OASIS mailings have taken a couple of
days
> to
> > >>>>reach me when others have got them (don't know why - guess the
server
> is
> > >>>>anti-English!).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>(There is no formal mechanism - even with Amendment 1 in place - to
> > >>>>>formally forbid a HEX encoding.  You can allow a BASE64 encoding as
> an
> > >>>>>encoder's option, but you cannot express formally that you require
> > >>>>>(only) that to be used instead of HEX.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I got this wrong - getting too old!  The BASE64 encoding instruction
> > >>>>*does* prohibit use of HEX (otherwise we would have ambiguous
> > >>>>encodings), but it does NOT mandate BASE64 - use of XML mark-up for
> the
> > >>>>contents is still allowed as an encoders option.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Sorry for the wrong information.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>(I don't think this affects the main discussion on what we want for
> > >>>
> > > XCBF.)
> > >
> > >>>>John L
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>PLEASE NOTE - As an anti-SPAM measure, e-mails will shortly
> > >>not be accepted by my machine from an unknown sender unless
> > >>the subject contains the phrase "Hi John".
> > >>
> > >>If you pass my e-mail address to others (which I am very happy
> > >>for you to do) please tell them to include this phrase in the
> > >>subject line of their first mailing to me.  Thanks.
> > >>
> > >>    Prof John Larmouth
> > >>    Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
> > >>    (Training and Protocol Development Services Ltd)
> > >>    1 Blueberry Road
> > >>    Bowdon                               j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
> > >>    Cheshire WA14 3LS                    (put "Hi John" in subject)
> > >>    England
> > >>    Tel: +44 161 928 1605 Fax: +44 161 928 8069
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PLEASE NOTE - As an anti-SPAM measure, e-mails will shortly
> > not be accepted by my machine from an unknown sender unless
> > the subject contains the phrase "Hi John".
> >
> > If you pass my e-mail address to others (which I am very happy
> > for you to do) please tell them to include this phrase in the
> > subject line of their first mailing to me.  Thanks.
> >
> >     Prof John Larmouth
> >     Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
> >     (Training and Protocol Development Services Ltd)
> >     1 Blueberry Road
> >     Bowdon                               j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
> >     Cheshire WA14 3LS                    (put "Hi John" in subject)
> >     England
> >     Tel: +44 161 928 1605 Fax: +44 161 928 8069
> >
> >
>