|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: BASE64 and numerical valuesNot always. Sometimes they are very large prime numbers. Julo
Julian, Don't the large cryptographic strings represent the coefficients of binary polynomials? I think those are binary values rather than numerical ones so it makes sense to restrict the base64 to binary objects as Bill suggests. Regards, Pat -----Original Message----- From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:08 AM To: Robert Snively Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu; 'Bill Studenmund' Subject: RE: iSCSI: BASE64 and numerical values And ignore completely the needs of some cryptographic protocols for large numerical values? I do not see why 6 bit values are more difficult to handle than 4 or 8 bit ones. Julo
I have been having continuing problems understanding why iSCSI is considering any use of base64, and I find myself in total agreement with Bill's clear exposition of the situation. Upon reviewing RFC-2045, it is clear that base64 is a method for containing handy binary values in a EMAIL structure that does not use TCP/IP to transmit data, but rather uses obsolete 7-bit ASCII or (slightly less obsolete) EBCDIC strings to carry the data. TCP/IP transmits data neutral octets, so binary values can be carried in their native binary string format (allowing for a possible requirement to pad strings to an octet boundary). The most standard way to present those binary strings on a printer or as an input value to a program is hexadecimal encoding. For those reasons, I agree with Bill that we should delete base64 from the text and use hexadecimal as he suggests. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Studenmund [mailto:wrstuden@wasabisystems.com] > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 2:54 PM > To: Julian Satran > Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: Re: iSCSI: BASE64 and numerical values > > > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Julian Satran wrote: > > > Yes for regular numerical values it makes sense. We will > have to keep it > > for large numerical values used for cryptography. Julo > > I realize I'm driving a semantic nit, but I don't think we should use > BASE64 for any "numeric" values, only "binary" ones. I > believe we probably > agree on what we want, I'm just worried that if the wording isn't 100% > tight, the decode path can become a real mess (since we're > supposed to be > liberal in what we accept :-). > > I'd like to suggest we drop BASE64 from the text that > mentions numerical > values. I really don't look forward to byteswapping a 256 or 512 bit > number as part of BASE64 decode. :-) > > I'd also like to suggest that for encoding large binary values using > hexadecimal, we state that the hexadecimal representation is > that of the > number in network byte order. i.e. if I have the five octets > 02 45 78 ab > de, the hex constant is 0x024578abde. That makes the decode logic REAL > easy; grab two hex characters & convert to one octet. Repeat > as needed. > Please note that this is not the output you'd get with something like > printf("0x%x", number) on a little-endian machine. > > Thirdly, I'd like to suggest we drop decimal support from > binary objects. > It too has the cumbersome byte-swapping issue that I started > this thread > about, just in reverse. :-) > > I realize that's a lot for one EMail. :-) > > To try and be proactive about this, I'd like to suggest > revised text for > section 4.1 (of course needs word-wrapping). For the definitions: > > hex-constant: hexadecimal constant encoded as a string start- > ing with "0x" or "0X" followed by 1 or more digits or the > letters a, b, c, d, e, f, A, B, C, D, E and F. Hex-constants > are used to encode numerical values or binary strings. When > used to encode numerical values the excessive use of leading > 0 digits is discouraged. When used to encode binary strings > hexadecimal constants must have an even number of digits, > and have an implicit byte-length that > includes 4 bits for every hexadecimal digit of the constant, > including leading zeroes (i.e., a hex-constant of n hexadeci- > mal digits has a byte-length of n/2). Additionally, when used > to encode binary strings, hexadecimal constants shall be > expressed in network byte order (i.e., the octet stream 02 > 45 78 ab de would be expressed as "0x024578abde"). > > decimal-constant: an unsigned decimal number - the digit 0 or a > string of 1 or more digits starting with a non-zero digit. > This encoding is not used for numerical values equal or > greater than 2**64. > > base64-constant: base64 constant encoded as a string starting > with "0b" or "0B" followed by 1 or more digits or letters or > plus or slash or equal. The encoding is done according to > [RFC2045]. base64-constants are used to encode binary strings. > Base64-constants have an implicit byte-length that includes 6 > bits for every character of the constant excluding trailing > equals (i.e., a base64-constant of n base64 characters > excluding the trailing equals and m trailing equals has a > byte-length of ((the integer part of) ((n+3)*3/4) - m). > > regular-numerical-value : an unsigned integer less than 2**64 > encoded as a decimal-constant, or hex constant. > > large-numerical-value : an unsigned integer larger than or > equal to 2**64 encoded as a hex constant. > > [no change for numerical-value or numerical-range] > > binary-value : a binary string encoded as a hex-con- > stant or base64-constant. The length of the string is either > specified by the key definition or is implicit byte-length of > the encoded string. > > [delete regualar-binary-value and large-binary-value since > the distinction > is gone] > > I don't see it explicitly mentioned anywhere, but I think all > of the CHAP > (and SRP, but not sure) keys are large numericalal values, and the > kerberos and SPKM keys are binary values. > > Also, I think the CHAP keys need the field length features of > hexadecimal > binary strings, but they are numbers, not binary strings. Not > sure how to > word that. > > Take care, > > Bill > >
Home Last updated: Tue May 21 18:18:31 2002 10187 messages in chronological order |