Subject: RE: Working Group Last call - draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-set-passwd-05.txt

From: "Paul Leach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:53:36 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Rex [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 7:56 AM
> 
> I surely doubt that the use of ASN.1 to define the IPv6 
> protocol would have improved things.  However it would have 
> prevent many people from participating the discussion and 
> understanding the spec.

I think this is a weak counter example -- ASN.1 is not intended for the
definition of transport layer protocols. And even if you hate it, like I
do, reading knowledge of ASN.1 should be required for anyone who
considers themselves competent is this field. It's useful subset isn't
really all that much different from the data structuring capabilities of
any high level language.

Paul

---

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:07:08 +0200 (METDST)

Hi Paul,

Paul Leach wrote:
> definition of transport layer protocols.

Unnecessary complexity and awkwardness should be avoided at all layers.

>                                       And even if you hate it, like I
> considers themselves competent is this field.

I have read RSA's layman guide to ASN.1 and can parse or create the
example ASN.1 data structures in there.  However I still consider
myself ASN.1 illiterate.  Using ASN.1 (or C-Style meta-code) to
convey an idea is one thing, using ASN.1 to write a protocol spec
is something entirely different (as is writing secure and robust
C-code).

>                                               It's useful subset isn't

If that is so, why did they take so many stabs (i.e. Revs) at it and are
still not done yet?  If ASN.1 were such a simple and easy-to-understand
language, we would long have a 20-page RFC describing it, wouldn't we?

-Martin