Re: iSCSI base64 and 12-92

[Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@wasabisystems.com>]

On Thu, 23 May 2002, Julian Satran wrote:

> If base 64 is neede for large integers there is no good reason to test
> that it is not used for short integers.

Julo,

You still haven't explained why we need base64 for large numbers. What
security negotiation schemes are we using that need to exchange large
numbers as numbers; where the scheme expects the number in host byte order
as opposed to a specific on-wire format.

More specifically you have not explained why the iSCSI parameter
negotiation system needs to be able to deal with large base64 numbers.

If we actually have any protocol which strangely wants large numbers in
local byte order, why not have the keys in question defined as exchanging
a binary string which is the number in network byte order?

The advantage of the above is that we then can drop base64 as a number
encoding scheme. The key negotiation system(s) need only deal with base64
binary strings, things base64 is good (no, great) for. And we can support
any cryptographic scheme we choose to in the future; the only thing we're
loosing is pain.

So what is wrong with the above?

I mean do we really want to have to support "MaxConnections=0b0Q=="?

Take care,

Bill