4 ms·
I finally understand why OSI failed, it's the naming! Dear lord.
by foobarian 2y ago
I finally understand why OSI failed, it's the naming! Dear lord.
- OhMeadhbh 2y agoOh no. The naming is simple compared to ASN.1/BER parsing.
- goalieca 2y agoI’m always confused about when to use DER and when to use BER. Pretty much have to study the history to get it.
- jonmon6691 2y agoI found this article helpful when I had that same question. Basically BER has some less rigid specifications for how to encode the data that can be convenient for the implementation. Such as symbol-terminated sequences instead of having to know their length ahead of time. But this means that there are many equivalent serializations of the same underlying object, which is problematic for cryptography, so DER is an unambiguous subset of BER which will have only one correct possible serialization for a given object. https://luca.ntop.org/Teaching/Appunti/asn1.html https://luca.ntop.org/Teaching/Appunti/asn1.html
- kragen 2y agoI think naming quality isn't really a difference between OSI and TCP/IP. I'm sending this message in URL-encoded UTF-8 in MIME over HTTP over TLS and TCP, IP, MPLS, DOCSIS, and an 802.11g CSMA/CA MAC in a CIDR IP block allocated by ARIN via LACNIC to an AS that belongs to a CLEC; ultimately you'll use an URL to read it in HTML, and if your UA is like mine, you'll use ECDHE ECDSA with AES-256-GCM and SHA-384, verified through a CA chain through E5 (which supports OCSP) and ISRG. But nobody bats an eye at that because that alphabet soup has been familiar for decades.