IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] Interoparability problem between RFC 5280 and EDIFACT

koichi sugimoto <koichi.sugimoto@globalsign.co.jp> Wed, 14 December 2011 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <koichi.sugimoto@globalsign.com>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8985411E8093 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.605, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8KlcWesKLfRn for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90E811E8073 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qcsf15 with SMTP id f15so285744qcs.31 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.78.84 with SMTP id j20mr2143343qck.46.1323833304375; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hv20sm2697415qab.22.2011.12.13.19.28.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vcbfy13 with SMTP id fy13so308238vcb.31 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.209.131 with SMTP id gg3mr3403768vcb.64.1323833303436; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.115.70 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:28:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E1RaT6I-0006uV-Bc@login01.fos.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <CAMAj_wGXGeZRgUAQHiJM3DdOBSaZxPzYK8zWMPHXkcmer4G+kg@mail.gmail.com> <E1RaT6I-0006uV-Bc@login01.fos.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:28:23 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMAj_wFjvYDnVM8qd417uBMF2929X0zPNBjK=p3gThPDUjYvhw@mail.gmail.com>
From: koichi sugimoto <koichi.sugimoto@globalsign.co.jp>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, pkix@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [pkix] Interoparability problem between RFC 5280 and EDIFACT
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pkix>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:28:25 -0000

Dear Sirs,

2011/12/13 Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>:
> koichi sugimoto <koichi.sugimoto@globalsign.co.jp> writes:
>
>>You mean the application has a bug?
>
> No, it's working fine (or at least any bug(s) aren't in this area :-).
>
>>If the application is compliant to RFC 5280, then, the application must be
>>able to handle 20 octets. Therefore, the encoding function that generates the
>>'CERTIFICATE REFERENCE' should convert 5 octets to less than 9 charcters.
>
> Uhh, I thought the problem was that the hex-encoding was creating 40 bytes of
> ASCII from 20 binary bytes, and that exceeded the 35-byte field length?
Yes.
Therefore, if the developper is familiar with RFC 5280, then, he/she
must implement
some compression method to the value of 'CERTIFICATE REFERENCE' field.

Does anyone know about a reference implementation of this field?

Regards,
Koichi Sugimoto.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status