Subject: ASN.1 straw poll, take 2

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:39 -0400

To assist Tim in his task of deciding how to treat the new ASN.1 
documents that Jim and Paul have developed, and to separate this 
issue from the WGLC on these documents, please reply to the following 
straw poll (which will still close on 5/22):

	- the new ASN.1 will OBSOLETE (i.e. replace as normative) the 
OLD ASN.1 in PKIX documents

	- the new ASN.1 will UPDATE (i.e., coexist as a peer with) 
the OLD ASN.1 in PKIX documents

Responses should just say OBSOLETE or UPDATE.

Thanks,

Steve

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 00:11:57 +0100

UPDATE

On 13 May 2009, at 23:40, Stephen Kent <[email-masked]> wrote:

> issue from the WGLC on these documents, please reply to the  
> following straw poll (which will still close on 5/22):
>
>    - the new ASN.1 will OBSOLETE (i.e. replace as normative) the OLD  
> ASN.1 in PKIX documents
>
>    - the new ASN.1 will UPDATE (i.e., coexist as a peer with) the

---

From: Dr Stephen Henson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 00:34:51 +0100

Stephen Kent wrote:
> documents that Jim and Paul have developed, and to separate this issue
> from the WGLC on these documents, please reply to the following straw
> poll (which will still close on 5/22):
> 
>     - the new ASN.1 will UPDATE (i.e., coexist as a peer with) the OLD
> ASN.1 in PKIX documents
> 
> 
> 

UPDATE

-- 
Dr Stephen N. Henson.
Core developer of the   OpenSSL project: http://www.openssl.org/
Freelance consultant see: http://www.drh-consultancy.co.uk/
Email: [email-masked], PGP key: via homepage.

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 01:40:52 +0200

UPDATE

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:41:27 -0700

OBSOLETE

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:owner-ietf-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephen Kent
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:41 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: ASN.1 straw poll, take 2
> 
>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:26:28 +0200

UPDATE

/Simon

---

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:51:38 +0200

UPDATE

---

From: "Carl Wallace" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 07:55:11 -0400

OBSOLETE

(However, I'd vote for UPDATE if it also results standards track
documents for the new modules)

> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:41 PM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:38:53 -0400

OBSOLETE

---

From: "Charles W. Gardiner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:48:01 -0400

UPDATE

At 06:40 PM 5/13/2009, Stephen Kent wrote:

>To assist Tim in his task of deciding how to treat the new ASN.1 documents 
>that Jim and Paul have developed, and to separate this issue from the WGLC 
>on these documents, please reply to the following straw poll (which will 
>still close on 5/22):
>

---

From: Massimiliano Pala <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:52:41 -0400

OBSOLETE

---

From: "Kemp, David P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:37:13 -0400

OBSOLETE

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:41 PM
To: 'Stephen Kent'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: ASN.1 straw poll, take 2

OBSOLETE

---

From: "Michael D'Errico" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:57:58 -0700

UPDATE

---

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:05:16 -0700

I do not buy into the argument that obsoleting the old ASN.1 would  
imply or necessitate a requirement for implementations to directly use  
the new ASN.1.   As with any (or at least nearly all) use of formal  
language in IETF specifications, the formal language is used only to  
express how data is to be encoded.  Implementations are free to use  
alternative expressions in encoding data so long as what the encodings  
they produce are consistent with encoding that would be produced if  
the definitive expression had been used.

Having two normatively referenced ASN.1 statements leads to confusion  
over which is definitive if they are subsequently found to be  
different.   It would be best to have one and only one referenced  
normatively and hence for this one to be definitive.

I generally favor use of modern ASN.1 as it allows encoding  
requirements to be far more clearly expressed than old ASN.1 and, in  
this case, do find the new ASN.1 module is more clear than the old ASN. 
1 module.

Hence, I am in favor of OBSOLETE.

I note that the LDAP community went through a similar debate when it  
updated LDAP technical specification.  In the end, the LDAP technical  
specification was updated to modern ASN.1, the specification was more  
precise (as allowed by the more modern ASN.1), did not cause any  
implementation to update ASN.1 modules just for update sake, but did  
lead to improvements in interoperability (because the resulting ASN.1  
module was clearer and more precise).

-- Kurt

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:19:31 -0700

OBSOLETE

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Steven Legg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:41:28 +1000

OBSOLETE

---

From: Peter Lipp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:49:45 +0200

UPDATE

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:49:49 -0400

>         - the new ASN.1 will OBSOLETE (i.e. replace as normative) 

UPDATE

---

From: Tom Gindin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:23:02 -0400

UPDATE

---

From: Michael Myers <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:23:57 -0700

UPDATE