Re: DER in ac509prof-03

[Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul:

Both generate identical bit strings.

This topic has been debated several times,and I do not think we should do 
it again on the list.  If you want to have a private discussion about it, I 
will be glad to do so.  The bottom line is that ASN.1-1997 does not have 
multiple implementations.

Russ


At 12:27 PM 05/10/2000 -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> writes:
>
>  Russ> I disagree.  We are using the ASN.1-1988 documents, not the
>  Russ> 1997 ones.
>
>  Russ> At 11:43 AM 05/10/2000 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>  >> "DER is defined in [X.208-88]" -> "DER is defined in [X.690-97]"
>  >> is fine by me, anyone else care?
>
> Are the two different?  That is, are there bitstrings that conform to
> one but not the other, or whose meaning changes depending on which
> spec you use?
>
> I think Russ's position is problematic.  It's a bit like saying that
> you continue to use an RFC that has been superseded.  Presumably it
> was superseded for a reason.  Also, while old RFCs are still
> available, 12 year old ITU specs may only exist in antique shops by
> now.   Clearly, it is not acceptable to have an RFC that points to an
> outside standard unless that outside standard is available.
>
>         paul