[Standards] XEP-0189: ASCII?
stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu May 15 19:11:29 UTC 2008
On 04/10/2008 2:34 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Mon Apr 7 18:10:01 2008, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>> On 4/7/08 10:48 AM, "Dave Cridland" <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>>>> For X.509 certificates, you can - <X509Certificate/> simply contains
>>>> a base64 encoding of the DER certificate, so no problem there - any
>>>> additional information is being duplicated from it.
>>> Isn't it likely that this is the cowpath that will get paved? If so, is
>>> there any reason we can't make the XEP more accessible to someone
>>> looking at
>>> implementing it by just removing everything but that? If there needs to
>>> some other cert type in the future, it could use a different namespace.
>> All this junk^Wvaluably expressive XML comes from xmldsig, so it's not
>> ours to mangle.
>> For X.509, I asked an X.509 expert here in the office, who said that
>> having the attributes easily accessible for non-X.509 aware clients
>> might be useful, and certainly did no harm.
>> I'm not clear if the DSA/PGP etc keys have the same properties, here -
>> are they being stored in a format that's actually useful?
> As far as I can tell, no. At least that's my sense for PGP, where the
> storage format is a "Key Material Packet" as defined in Section 5.5 of
> RFC 2440 (not ASCII output as defined in Section 6 of RFC 2440). The
> situation seems to be similar for DSA and RSA keys.
> I wonder if we need separate nodes for different pubkey types and simply
> provide pointers to those nodes from the "base" pubkey node?
A further data point (from the vCard RFC):
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards