Re: WG Last Call draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

Oliver - Juergen is refering to ASN.1:1988, and not later versions.
Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s when most parsers for MIB
modules were created, the specifications were not easily obtainable,
and the price was certainly a problem.

While I and others appreciate that the ITU-T has made documents available,
and that books on ASN.1 have been written and made available, I certainly
would not recommend further use of ASN.1 for the language to define
MIB/SPPI modules. From my experience, it is not the appropriate choice.

At 08:11 PM 8/16/2001 +0000, Olivier Dubuisson wrote:
>Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> 
>> >>>>> Ayers, Mike writes:
>> 
>> Mike> We cannot specify our way out of bad implementations - "what"
>> Mike> and "how" are different questions.  This requirement is also
>> Mike> meaningless (of COURSE it must be machine readable, or else
>> Mike> parsers can't exist) and should be lost.
>> 
>> If the "what" is not precisely defined, then it is much harder for
>> implementors to get the "how" right. RFCs 2578-2580 do not precisely
>> define the syntax of SMIv2. It relies on a ASN.1 document which is
>> (a) is not easy to obtain - even for money 
>
>Plain wrong. Three ITU-T Recommendations can be downloaded per email address
>for free. See http://www.itu.int/publications/bookshop/how-to-buy.html#free
>
>If some people involved in SMIng are interested to have a draft copy of the
>new 2002 edition of the ASN.1 standards, they can email me.
>
>> and (b) which is itself
>> hard to read and understand.
>
>FYI there are (up-to-date) books that you can freely download from 
>http://www.oss.com/asn1/booksintro.html
>
>Also we are working on the a new edition of the ASN.1 standards: if there
>are areas that are not clear to you, please point to them and we'll
>improve the text.
>-- 
>Olivier DUBUISSON (ITU-T ASN.1 Rapporteur)

Regards,
/david t. perkins