W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Certificate = DER ?

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:59:02 -0500
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "'John Wray'" <John_Wray@notesdev.ibm.com>, ""'Magnus Nyström <magnus'"" <magnus@rsa.com>, "'Konrad Lanz'" <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, <public-xmlsec-request@w3.org>
Message-Id: <67D64A74-7F8C-43B2-B0C3-1BFBF62DF3FA@nokia.com>
To: ext Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>

Would now be a good time for a concrete proposal for language or  
should we wait for more discussion first?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Nov 7, 2008, at 2:39 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote:

>
>> I think that every ASN.1 parser that I've ever used (or written) will
> accept
>> BER-encoded data transparently to the invoking application, so I  
>> don't
> think
>> that encountering a BER-encoded certificate is a big deal in  
>> practice.
>
> I'm not convinced that it's true, but I could be convinced. And  
> again, the
> issue is not ASN.1 parsing, it's certificate parsing. People don't use
> general ASN.1 code to load certificates. They use code that uses ASN. 
> 1 code
> internally.
>
> (I do believe, upon looking closer, that OpenSSL claims to handle  
> BER in its
> DER-oriented certificate functions, which would be consistent with  
> this
> claim.)
>
> But what about non-BER/DER encodings?
>
> Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, it's my strong opinion  
> that
> V2.0 of this schema needs to fix this. If we want to support multiple
> encodings, that's fine by me, but not signaling the encoding in the  
> XML is
> pushing the burden for interop on other specs.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 20:00:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:55 GMT