Re: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec

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

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
>
>
>