From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org]
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
Arguments on complexity are too easy to make. Every time a
proposal is
made I hear the complexity argument used against it.
Everything we do
is complex. Computers are complex. Committee process
usually increases
complexity somewhat.
If an argument can always be used what is the discrimination power?
How about using answers to the question "Is this complexity needed?"
as a discriminator?
Sometimes, there is no better solution than one with certain
complexity. That isn't inherently bad.
I'm not sure the need for this particular complex solution
was demonstrated. I don't recall anyone defending it. The
experimental track thus seems appropriate, if it should be
published at all.
Define 'need'.
Define 'complexity'.
From my point of view a device that has two parser stacks on it is more
complex than a device that can do it all with a single stack. Thus translating
SNMP into XML makes excellent sense and reduces complexity overall.
I don't think it makes sense to translate every ASN.1 protocol into XML,
particularly if there is an XML infrastructure for the purpose. But I would
certainly prefer to be able to support SNMP on an XML centric device without
having to provide an ASN.1 stack. Further I would like there to be consistency
in the way that SNMP/XML and LDAP/XML to map to the traditional ASN.1 versions.
It's a legitimate architectural approach and the IETF should not take sides
against it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf