Re: Examples of ASN.1 for SMIng.txt

[John Larmouth <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>]

Andy Bierman wrote:

> Silence could mean a proposal is being ignored, or it
> could mean nothing at all.

Which is why I sent my e-mail!
 
> I don't think this proposed syntax is very user-friendly.

A subjective remark.  Can you substantiate that?  The detailed syntax
can be varied in a fairly flexible manner (not quite with the full
flexibility of BNF, but close, and you balance that against the added
tool support).

> I strongly oppose using this syntax because it is not
> familiar to a significant percentage of the user population.

Oh Boy!  Not invented here!  (Sorry to be rude!)  I did not see
"familiar syntax" as one of the criteria in the London output (or maybe
I missed it?)

Actually, the syntax is very like SMI v2 except that it has surrounding
curly braces in a number of places.  This is to make the syntax more
"computer friendly" which should also not be neglected.

> Also, it does not appear that the ASN.1 proposal advances the
> state-of-the-art in any significant ways.

I have had an off-line chat with David Perkins, in which he tried to
explain to me the precise areas in which you wish to "advance the
state-of-the-art". It appears to relate at least partly to avoidance of
repetitive definitions (re-use, or inheritance features in the notation)
and to provision for alternative but equivalent definitions based on
different data models. Such requirements need to be more clearly
expressed if they are to be properly addressed.

As far as avoidance of repetitive definitions is concerned, there are
features (perhaps not clearly presented) of the ASN.1 approach that
address that.
 
John L