[plasma] Should ASN.1 Policy be changed to XML Policy

"Jim Schaad" <jimsch@augustcellars.com> Mon, 06 August 2012 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jimsch@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: plasma@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: plasma@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BC411E80A4 for <plasma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 ZRxS1cVXOKU3 for <plasma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58AE611E80A5 for <plasma@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Tobias (mail.augustcellars.com [50.34.17.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 256B22CA1F for <plasma@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jim Schaad" <jimsch@augustcellars.com>
To: <plasma@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:03:04 -0700
Message-ID: <009b01cd7416$dfc75ea0$9f561be0$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac10FaYARhwv/PzyR9qfX0+di64/4w==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:16:23 -0700
Subject: [plasma] Should ASN.1 Policy be changed to XML Policy
X-BeenThere: plasma@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The PoLicy Augmented S/Mime \(plasma\) bof discussion list." <plasma.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/plasma>
List-Post: <mailto:plasma@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:04:33 -0000

In the EPS-LockBox structure, there is a place to put a policy tree.  This
is currently coded as an ASN.1 structure with various leaf types.  There is
an equivalent structure, but encoded in XML in the server protocol document.
There are some potential issues with having two different encodings and I am
looking for input into the question of moving to a single encoding method.


The ASN.1 encoding is going to be smaller, when placed in an ASN.1 context,
such as the EPS-LockBox structure.  It would probably not be smaller if we
used the ASN.1 structure in an XML context because of the base64 expansion
of all of the text strings associated with policy names and policy
parameters.

Having a single method of encoding would mean that there is a single method
of encoding and the same parsing could be used in many places, however there
is a question of what happens for schema tagging in the case of placing the
XML into the ASN.1 context.  If we use XML in the ASN.1 context, should we
require that a full schema tag be added or would the XML parser be required
to deal with any nodes found.  There is a high probably that one would need
to deal with schema strings for expanded sets of parameters which are
currently incorrectly done in the ASN.1 document.

I am currently in the process of updating the document and want to have it
published before next Monday.  I am currently on the fence about making the
change to using the XML format of policies in the ASN.1 document.  If you
want to give me input please do so this week.  We can always revisit later
if we decide it is wrong, but the fewer times we change this, the better for
implementers.

Jim