Re: [xcbf] Ballot

["Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

Alessandro,

I agree that we can not make major changes to the ASN.1 modules
at this point in the process, without suffering significant delay. But my
description of an approach was more theoretical and less practical
than Ed's. His was to simply transfer Base64 in the octet string.

Ed's approach allows us to implement XCBF now (in his tools and
yours using a directive) with no changes to our applications later if
we add the encoding control notation to the module. This gives us
a seamless way forward with no impact on products.

Phil


Alessandro Triglia wrote:

>Phil,
>
>Your comment below indicates a simple solution to some of the issues
>that I and others have raised.
>
>---------------
>[...] This data, then represented as hexadecimal 
>characters, can be subsequently transformed by a receiving 
>application into Base64 characters. [...] On encoding these binary
>objects, they can be encoded directly into the hexadecimal
>representation required by the OCTET STRING type specified in the XCBF
>ASN.1 Schema, then converted after schema validation into Base64 by the
>recipient.
>---------------
>
>So we agree that base-64 is NOT used in the actual XML messages being
>exchanged.  So we do NOT change the ASN.1 modules.
>
>How shall we proceed in relation to the other comments?
>
>Alessandro
>
>
>
>  
>