At 9:34 AM 7/28/95, Jueneman(_at_)gte(_dot_)com wrote:
certificates, with Steve Crocker and Donald Eastlake of CyberCash being among
the most vocal critics. Others have weighed in on the pem-dev list with
Forgive me for agreeing with Steve and Don, but there's a lesson
being missed here...
In summary, it does not appear that there is is anything that is inherently
wrong with ASN.1 per se. The fact that it is an international standard that is
Other than complexity and unnecessary generality?
As with many other OSI ideas, ASN.1 (originally X.408) is
well-intentioned, trying to provide a general, long-term facility.
However, ASN.1 may have an initial learning curve that should be taken into
Having a significant learning curve is a negative. One of the
lessons being missed is that global adoption and use of a specification
requires attention to the human factors of learning the darn thing. It
needs to be relatively easy. ASN.1 isn't. If the real benefits outweighed
the effort, then fine.
The reality is that most global standards need relatively simple
strings. In the case of global certificates, we need to pay very, very
close attention to what we have learned vis a vis Internet vs. X.400
addresses. A little-known fact is that X.400 addresses were developed
largely by Arpanet folk. We thought the generality would be a good idea.
We were wrong.
Please folks: start by thinking of the human factors that apply
during daily use of these strings and design the rest of the features
around it.
d/
ps. No human factors? It will all be taken care of by GUI front-ends?
Try again.
--------------------
Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr. page: +1 408 581 1174
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com