[
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.
Amy!
--
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
|
