Re: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec

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

The combination we were closest to at the end was:

a) BASE64 for the CertificateSet and CertificateRevocationList OCTET
STRING's

b) XER for the outer level encoding and CXER for the BiometricObjects (note:
for the purpose of this document, the term "BASIC-XER" is not recognized
because it does not exist in any published standard).

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 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec


> A further reply:
>
> We have four options now (combinations of a) and b) below):
>
> a) Use of BASE64 or not for the DER encodings in the OCTET STRINGs
>
> b) Use of CXER or BASIC-XER as the outer-level encoding.
>
> It is my honest belief that clear conformant text can be produced for
> all four combinations (but with very different imlications for the
> complexity of implementations, particularly if relaying in and out of
> PER is being envisaged - see an earlier e-mail).  I am prepared to
> produce draft text for **any two** out of the four, but not for all
> four!  You can then decide which you like best.
>
> Let me know which two you want text for.  (Noting that BASE64 is
> currently in, but that the current text is ambiguous/inconsistent on b)
> above.)
>
> Would a NetMeeting, once Paul is back from holiday and can host it, be a
> useful way of resolving this, or do you want to try to settle it sooner
> by e-mail?
>
> 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
>
>