Subject: RE: SPNEGO-bis comments/questions

From: "Liqiang\(Larry\) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 04:26:12 -0800

I do not mind adding the size limit here.

Two changes will be made into the next version.

1) The ContextFlags will be decorated with the size constrain.

ContextFlags ::= BIT STRING (SIZE (32)) {
        delegFlag       (0),
        mutualFlag      (1),
        replayFlag      (2),
        sequenceFlag    (3),
        anonFlag        (4),
        confFlag        (5),
        integFlag       (6)
}

2) A new appendix for the ASN module will be added.

-- Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 9:59 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: SPNEGO-bis comments/questions

Martin Rex wrote:

>>>Not so much getting the minimal length wrong as being able to use a 
>>>different implementation strategy.  If a bit string has a fixed 
>>>maximum size that can fit in an int, and is being used to indicate 
>>>flags you can avoid having to create an indefinite length bit string.
>>>      
>>>
>
>In case that we have a requirement for DER-encoding in SPNEGO, then 
>indefinite length encoding is not permitted.
>  
>
I should have said unconstrained length.  If you have a bit string whose
length is constrained enough to fit entirely in a machine word, you can
generate a simpler implementation; bignum vs int.

Simon

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten