OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] ASN.1 is an XML Schema Language (Fix those lists!)and Bina

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:48:45 -0500
> understanding of it. The ASN.1 approach of designing with abstract
> syntax and then using deterministic translations to concrete syntax
> greatly improves the effectiveness with which a protocol can be
> communicated. The result should be higher interoperability.

See RFC2116 for a definition of SHOULD.  Also check some of the cynics
on the net (findable via google) on whether "SHOULD" should ever appear
in a specification.

SHOULD didn't happen.

> > the notion that there's no re-use between protocols in the 
> > Web/concrete approach is just silly; HTTP is
> 	As I'm sure you realize, I was refering to things like Telnet,
> FTP, SMTP, SNMP, NNTP, etc. which have completely divergent code bases
> above the TCP/IP layer. The history of protocol development is made up

No.  They.  Don't.

All of these protocols are based on the concept of the "network virtual
terminal", a device long since outmoded (it only does ASCII, and prefers
not to see most control characters, but especially hates 0x0).

> of these isolated efforts and it was this history that your original

I can send some hyperlinks to RFCs, or to mailing lists dedicated to the
history of internet protocol development.  In a word, though, your
assertions are incorrect and conclusions drawn from them are thus likely
to be on shaky ground.

> mailing seemed to be refering to. Reuse of protocol components on the
> Internet has been a rare and primarily recent phenomenon. (With some

Horsefeathers.  Do the research.

> 	Are you saying that just because it has worked in the past we
> shouldn't try to do better? In any case, an argument for ASN.1 is not

I think it's a challenge to show that it can be done better, before
you're going to get people to give up working tools.  This is the same
argument that came to a conclusion at the IETF in 1992: here's this
grand, abstract, wonderful OSI protocol stack, complete with abstract
syntax notations and everything totally comp-sci.  No working code,
though.  The IETF requirement for two independently developed,
interoperating (and complete) implementations was apparently too great a
burden for the potential reward.  Rough consensus says: no running code,
no brass ring.

Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
I have spent nights with matches and knives, leaning over ledges, only 
two flights up.  Cutting my heart, burning my soul.  Nothing left to
hold.  Nothing left, but blood and fire.
                -- Indigo Girls


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS