Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.

Bill Frantz <> Tue, 01 April 2014 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04ED1A6FD6 for <>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a2i4S_LuhtPX for <>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EF01A096C for <>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=Williams-MacBook-Pro.local) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1WUrkB-0004mE-Ho for; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 02:00:19 -0400
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:59:49 -0700
From: Bill Frantz <>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <r422Ps-1075i-F609ABACDF8640D7BBEA493172D4438F@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mailsmith 2.3.1 (422)
X-ELNK-Trace: 3a5e54fa03f1b3e21aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec792cff6a674c926c194ecf43c409525434350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 06:00:25 -0000

On 3/31/14 at 8:16 AM, (Stephen Kent) wrote:

>I agree that ASN.1 is complex, and if this were a new protocol, not tied to any existing
>ASN.1-based data structures, I would not select ASN.1 as a starting point. But since we're
>talking about data from a TBS cert,since the generators of the data are CAs (who should
>know how to process ASN.1), and since the consumers of the data are browsers who already
>process certs, it seems reasonable to stick with ASN.1.

On 3/31/14 at 8:19 AM, (Salz, Rich) wrote:

>Adding another encoding makes things more complex.  Therefore, the simplest thing to do is use ASN.1
>It's like when you're editing someone else's source code: the 
>best thing to do is preserve the existing style.

On 3/31/14 at 8:28 AM, (Ben Laurie) wrote:

>As I just mention, its not actually another encoding - the data
>structure can also (ideally should also) be sent as a TLS extension,
>in which case ASN.1 is not the simplest thing to do.

Stephen, Rich and Ben make good points. It's too bad the 
conclusions differ.

Cheers - Bill

Bill Frantz        | There are now so many exceptions to the
408-356-8506       | Fourth Amendment that it operates only by | accident.  -  William Hugh Murray