W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: XML certificate ...

From: Olivier DUBUISSON <Olivier.Dubuisson@francetelecom.fr>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 17:23:18 +0000
Message-ID: <39281B86.14AD@francetelecom.fr>
To: Carl Ellison <cme@jf.intel.com>
CC: Ken Goldman <kgold@watson.ibm.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Carl Ellison wrote:
> 
> At 09:39 AM 5/10/00 -0400, Ken Goldman wrote:
> >Also new to the list.
> >
> >ASN.1 is hard to read because it is so compact while XML is easy to
> >read because it's verbose.

You're comparing an abstract syntax notation with a transfer syntax.
When you write 'compact', I guess you're talking of BER (or PER that
is much more compact than BER) but not of ASN.1.

> >For certificates, there is a big advantage to compactness, as they
> >often have to be stored on limited memory devices like smart cards.
> >
> >I'd like to see a size comparison.  On a smart card, 100 bytes can be
> >very important.
> 
> If it's size you care about, SPKI's S-expressions beat ASN.1 in all side-by-side
> comparisons we've done.

Again, you're comparing 2 things that are not on the same level.
When you want compaction, use PER (Packed Encoding Rules): I'm sure
it "beat S-expressions in all side-by-side comparisons". BTW PER is
used to store data on smart cards.

[Hope I won't settle a war, for it seems to me that ASN.1 is not very
welcome on such lists ;-) ]
-- 
Olivier DUBUISSON
france telecom R&D
     _                 DTL/MSV - 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
    ( )           tel: +33 2 96 05 38 50 - fax: +33 2 96 05 39 45
    / \/               --------------------------------------
    \_/\               Site ASN.1 : http://asn1.elibel.tm.fr/
Received on Sunday, 21 May 2000 11:24:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:09 GMT