Re: SSL sans RSA

Michael F. Reusch (reusch@home.com)
Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:15:27 -0500

• Next message: Bill Frantz: "Re: SSL sans RSA"
• Previous message: Andrew Meredith: "ASN.1 vs Binary (was: SSL sans RSA)"
• In reply to: Niels Möller: "SSL sans RSA"
• Next in thread: Bill Frantz: "Re: SSL sans RSA"

At 05:42 PM 2/20/99 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
> --
>At 04:17 PM 2/17/99 +0100, Martin Grap wrote:
>> Have a look at RFC 2459 (Internet X.509 Public Key
>> Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile). The document
>> describes object-Id's and other ASN.1 stuff for algorithms
>> different from RSA when used in X.509 cetificates.
>
>Warning: I have heard numerous complaints that ASN.1 sucks
>mightily--not that I understand the complaints or am
>competent to judge them.

Having lived with ASN.1, for a while now, I cannot say that I have grown
fond of it. After one has decided on a byte order, it is a pithy
question as to exactly what else ASN ultimately buys you, apart from
complexity,
for complexities sake. However, as I am a proponent of the ancient "keep it
simple and stupid" and abstraction = obfuscation school of software design,
my personal opinions are likely irrelevant and to be ignored.

Meanwhile, Carl Ellison has some amusing points at ASN.1 Misuse,
http://www.clark.net/pub/cme/P1363/asn1.html

• Next message: Bill Frantz: "Re: SSL sans RSA"
• Previous message: Andrew Meredith: "ASN.1 vs Binary (was: SSL sans RSA)"
• In reply to: Niels Möller: "SSL sans RSA"
• Next in thread: Bill Frantz: "Re: SSL sans RSA"