RE: Leading 0x on hash?

["Larry Golding \(Comcast\)" <larrygolding@comcast.net>]

Thanks.

 

I made an editorial change in the Provisional Draft to specify that a hash.value whose format is hexadecimal contains no prefix or suffix. I also took the opportunity to say that it is case-insensitive ("123ab" is the same as "123AB").

 

The Change Draft is here:

 

                Documents/ChangeDrafts/Accepted/sarif-v2.0-editorial-hex-hash-value-format.docx

 

Larry

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Michael Fanning <Michael.Fanning@microsoft.com>

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 8:34 AM

To: James A. Kupsch <kupsch@cs.wisc.edu>; Larry Golding (Comcast) <larrygolding@comcast.net>; sarif@lists.oasis-open.org

Subject: RE: Leading 0x on hash?

 

I agree. The 0x prefix is mostly to help differentiate literals in languages/contexts that provide for differing base (10, 16, 8) and not a convention associated with hash function outputs.

 

-----Original Message-----

From: James A. Kupsch <kupsch@cs.wisc.edu>

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 7:55 AM

To: Larry Golding (Comcast) <larrygolding@comcast.net>; sarif@lists.oasis-open.org; Michael Fanning <Michael.Fanning@microsoft.com>

Subject: Re: Leading 0x on hash?

 

I do not think that they should have a leading "0x".  I have never seen a hash value with a leading "0x".  It is a string value and the description describes the meaning for hash functions that produce integer values.

 

Jim

 

 

On 04/20/2018 06:42 PM, Larry Golding (Comcast) wrote:

> Should hex hash digests have a leading "0x"?

>

> The spec doesn't say. The samples in the spec do /not/ have the

> leading 0x, and at the moment, the SARIF SDK does not emit the leading 0x either.

>

> Larry

>