Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.

[Bill Frantz <[e-mail]>]

On 3/31/14 at 8:16 AM, [e-mail] (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, [e-mail] (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, [e-mail] (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
www.pwpconsult.com | accident.  -  William Hugh Murray