IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 31 March 2014 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E281A6F01 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yD2-DJaMF7jK for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A15E1A6EF0 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-089-218.bbn.com ([128.89.89.218]:49221) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1WUdm1-000H0N-SS for trans@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:05:17 -0400
Message-ID: <53398425.4020404@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:05:09 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: trans@ietf.org
References: <CAMm+Lwjy7gMphsfByROYP2WDTvP4nVkCQPj=oHkVFr=AQv=qjw@mail.gmail.com> <5322131A.2080507@comodo.com> <CAMm+Lwhz7KM44kMgn8mdFtR6Ow=aMik-5GD-Wge+JZUKz751mA@mail.gmail.com> <CALzYgEdSs0+SJrL9uzem1NnWv=jPAFr_dxrqvLkSqyd_nX+yGg@mail.gmail.com> <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607C85F39F4@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM> <CAMm+LwjriXwEYZZX03y=w-gC_O5uczuXKnAcJpUFnZ-m6JS4Pw@mail.gmail.com> <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607C85F3B2D@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM>
In-Reply-To: <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607C85F3B2D@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000407090105050602070506"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/vuqwQ4qZuomCENshOfM3SJfNV-k
Subject: Re: [Trans] RFC6962 BIS Log file encodings.
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:05:15 -0000

> I understand that there are problems with ASN.1 and many people don't 
> like it, but if we're talking about X.509 certificates we have to use 
> ASN.1. All of our code for putting blobs into a cert work by defining 
> the structure using ASN.1. Yes, we can add a blob that has some other 
> encoding, but it's more difficult.
>
> If the encoding were ASN.1, it might make adoption more straightforward.
>
> -Rick
>
*+1 though, as former PKIX, I may be biased :-).*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email