- From: Olivier DUBUISSON <Olivier.Dubuisson@francetelecom.fr>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 17:23:18 +0000
- 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 UTC