[noise] Proposal: certificate and private key format

[Adam Crain]

Hi Rhys,

I don't have any helpful comments as I just joined this list a week ago,
but I have a couple of questions.

I've used protobufs in the past and found them to be an excellent tool for
exchanging data in an efficient manner.  Do protobuf compilers produce
bindings that detect non-canonical encodings?

I'm working on a low bandwidth application of noise that will have to use a
non-x509 (read more efficient) certificate format. Thus far, the only thing
we have looked at is the M2M format:

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/ecc-workshop-2015/presentations/session2-ford-warwick.pdf
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ford-m2mcertificate-00

This format seems to be "x509-lite". They use ASN1 DER, but get rid of a
lot of unnessary fields to produce more efficient representations. Is
protobuf more compact than ASN DER in this regard? Protobuf seems to have
MUCH better OSS compiler support than ASN1.

-Adam



On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Rhys Weatherley <rhys.weatherley at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Since no one seemed to be a fan of my text-based certificate format, I
> have reworked the proposal using protobufs instead:
>
> http://rweather.github.io/noise-c/cert_key_format.html
> https://github.com/rweather/noise-c/blob/master/doc/noise-certificate.proto
>
> Feedback is appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rhys.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noise mailing list
> Noise at moderncrypto.org
> https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/noise
>
>


-- 

J Adam Crain - Partner

 <http://www.automatak.com>

PGP 4096R/E2984A0C <https://www.automatak.com/keys/jadamcrain.asc> 2013-05-03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/noise/attachments/20160502/c59d45fe/attachment.html>