Re: Range of Security : Nonce

On 2014-04-23 11:29, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 April 2014 02:56, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 04/19/2014 10:49 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>     > Or is there a downside to those types that I'm just completely blind
>     > to?
>     >
>     > I would be quite happy to use any of those types.  But the "range"
>     > of nonce is limited to string.  So if I did so, I would be violating
>     > the ontology.
> 
>     I wouldn't put too much authority into the current vocabulary. If the
>     range of nonce in the Security vocabulary is preventing you from getting
>     something useful done, we should probably change the acceptable ranges
>     for nonce.
> 
>     Perhaps we should expand it to allow xsd:string, xsd:base64, and
>     xsd:hexBinary. Would that work for you, Melvin?
> 
> 
> Perfect!

May I ask how a receiver is supposed to understand what the actual coding is?
Is coding a part of the message as well?  Seems a bit complicated in my opinion.

If there are no other constraints (which I know nothing about), I would select
either string or base64.  Base64 is simpler since UTF-8 characters are
somewhat difficult to deal with since they can be 1-3 bytes long.

Anders


>  
> 
> 
>     -- manu
> 
>     --
>     Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>     Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>     blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
>     http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 09:41:35 UTC