--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 17:30 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
Options are not necessarily complications.
The only point to having XER that I can see is if you intend
to allow an orderly transition from use of ASN.1 to use of
XML. Both standards do their job fine, both are somewhat more
complex than they should be. One of these choices is surplus
to requirements.
If I am writing in any modern development language that
supports metadata such as .NET I can perform XML encoding and
decoding automatically by simply calling up an
encoder/decoder. To create the same capability in ASN.1
requires vastly more effort.
If we had hundreds of ASN.1 schemas that people cared about in
the IETF I might see an argument for continuing to dual stack
ASN.1 and XML indefinitely. Given where we are enabling a
phase out of ASN.1 for certain protocols makes a lot of sense.
I don't think that this would make a lot of sense for PKIX but
certainly for SNMP and LDAP.
Whether I agree with the above or not (and I think we could
debate your last couple of paragraphs at great length), if the
document said something like that, I'd be a lot happier.
And, perhaps like some others, I'm much less concerned about the
document at this point than the claims that there were no
comments and/or no actionable comments.
I hope this is being discussed within the IESG because it would
be a pity to write up an appeal at this point --especially just
before the handoff-- if they were willing to just do the right
thing. That, to me, would be to pull back the approval and
either rewrite the statement or tune the document a bit or both.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf