Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.

The encoding isn't ASN.1 so using ASN.1 schema is a terrible idea.

Putting data in certificates does unfortunately lead to the risk of ASN.1.

One of the reasons I developed JSON-BCD was I could see this going to
happen and I would much prefer the JSON style approach over any further
investment in ASN.1.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Rick Andrews <Rick_Andrews@symantec.com>wrote:

> In addition, our ASN.1 experts have asked for the syntax to be described
> in "ASN.1-like" syntax, as is used in RFCs 3280 and 5280.
>
>
>
> For example, 3280/5280 defines an Extension like this:
>
>
>
> Extension  ::=  SEQUENCE  {
>
>      extnID      OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
>
>      critical    BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
>
>      extnValue   OCTET STRING  }
>
>
>
> so the extnValue is defined as an OCTET STRING, yet 6962 says "...encoding
> the SignedCertificateTimestampList structure as an ASN.1 OCTET STRING and
> inserting the resulting data in the TBSCertificate as an X.509v3
> certificate extension...". The ASN.1 folks say it's not clear if that means
> that the Extension contains the OCTET STRING data type (for extnValue) and
> length followed by another OCTET STRING data type identifier and length of
> the SCT. Or is the second OCTET STRING identifier redundant?
>
>
>
> Those updating existing cert generation code will probably be dealing with
> ASN.1 compilers, so a precise definition of structures in ASN.1-like syntax
> will go a long way. In addition, defining OIDs as arc plus extension (like
> this: id-kp-serverAuth  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 1 }) would help.
>
>
>
> -Rick
>
>
>
> *From:* Trans [mailto:trans-bounces@ietf.org <trans-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Eran Messeri
> *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 3:01 AM
> *To:* Phillip Hallam-Baker
> *Cc:* Rob Stradling; trans@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.
>
>
>
> I strongly support clarifying the description of the file format. When I
> started implementing aspects of RFC6962 (with no background in TLS encoding
> or ASN.1) it was very unclear.
>
> From other posts<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/certificate-transparency/T9CDwnsercQ>on the list it seems this was unclear to others as well.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
> wrote:
>
> (Inspired by RFC5280 Appendix C)
>
> Would it help to include one or more example SCTs in the text?
>
>
>
> I think we definitely need that for Proposed. But right now I am trying to
> see how complete the description is.
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>
>
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/