--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 17:30 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf