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