Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.

I don't see the problem with ASN.1.
Can't you propose a JSON Encoding Rule standard?
Le 28 mars 2014 19:13, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>
>