In my experience, the RFC Editor relies on authors to compile non-MIB ASN.1 modules. Russ On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > 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 >