In my experience, the RFC Editor relies on authors to compile non-MIB ASN.1
modules.
Russ
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:16 -0700, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
2) In the following, we suggest that "ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
MIB-related details)" be updated to reflect "MIBs". Although MIB
modules are written using a subset of ASN.1, the RPC does not check all
ASN.1, we only check MIBs. This change will reflect what is done in
practice. If the intent is to actually require the RPC to check all
ASN.1, please let us know and we will discuss checking tools with the
RSE and IAD.
Current:
1.3. Validation of formal languages
The RPC should validate the syntax of sections of documents containing
formal languages. In particular ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
MIB-related details), YANG, ABNF, and XML should be verified using one
or more tools as approved by the RSE.
I was a participant in and co-chair of a WG (Kerberos) which produced a
lot of documents containing ASN.1 other than in MIBs. Before
considering a document ready for publication, we generally required
verification that its ASN.1 module compiles. Usually this was done by
one or more implementors, who already had handy the tools and
dependencies required to perform such a check.
While I have no objection in principle to the RPC doing this check, it
seems likely that the burden of doing so would be significant and, at
least for IETF-stream documents, not worthwhile for the relatively small
gains realized. This sort of check should be done before a document is
ever submitted to the IESG, let alone the RPC.
-- Jeff