Subject: [IDMEF] IESG Comment section 3.2.4

From: Herve Debar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:32:04 +0100

Sections 3.2.4, :
 >
 > My earlier comment was this:
 > [[
 > Using XML character references to encode binary data seems seriously
 > broken to me.  Character references in XML denote Unicode code points,
 > *not* byte values.  I suggest looking to the XML encryption work for
 > ways to encode binary data in XML.
 > ]]
 >
 > Now I haven't a clue what this document is specifiying.  There is a
 > reference to a BYTE datatype, but no description I can see of how it
 > is encoded in XML.

I think that the comment is right. In fact, this reminds me of one of 
the issues I posted earlier, adding an encoding field to the 
additionaldata field to specify encoding. Do we need byte encoding 
outside of additionaldata ? I would like this question answered before 
deciding what to do with the BYTE type.

Hervé
-- 
Hervé Debar             <mailto:[email-masked]>
Tel: +33 (0)2 31 75 92 61            GSM: +33 (0)6 74 09 09 66
France Télécom R&D                   Fax: +33 (0)2 31 75 93 13
42 rue des Coutures  (--)  BP 6243  (--)  F-14066 Caen Cedex 4

---

From: "David A. Curry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:45:34 -0500

>>>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Herve Debar, identified as "Herve" below, wrote:

  Herve> Sections 3.2.4, :

  +> My earlier comment was this: [[ Using XML character references to encode
  +> binary data seems seriously broken to me.  Character references in XML
  +> denote Unicode code points, *not* byte values.  I suggest looking to the
  +> XML encryption work for ways to encode binary data in XML. ]]
  +> Now I haven't a clue what this document is specifiying.  There is a
  +> reference to a BYTE datatype, but no description I can see of how it is
  +> encoded in XML.

  Herve> I think that the comment is right. In fact, this reminds me of one
  Herve> of the issues I posted earlier, adding an encoding field to the
  Herve> additionaldata field to specify encoding. Do we need byte encoding
  Herve> outside of additionaldata ? I would like this question answered before
  Herve> deciding what to do with the BYTE type.

The comment is right... that text is REALLY, REALLY old and has been sort of
superceded by real world approaches.

I believe we may still need some sort of "binary data encoding" mechanism for
people who want to stuff raw packets in there or whatever -- at least, people
seemed to want to do that back in some of the meetings.  I'm certainly willing
to be told I'm wrong and we don't need this.

But if we do, I would suggest we look at some of the other RFCs that encode
such data in XML, and follow the same approach, rather than re-inventing the
wheel.

--Dave