[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: encodings: do we need binary at all?

To: spki@c2.org
Subject: Re: encodings: do we need binary at all?
From: baos@oss.oss.com (Bancroft Scott)
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 96 21:34:51 EST
Sender: owner-spki@c2.org

"marcus (m.d.) leech" <uunet!bnr.ca!mleech> wrote:

> I don't think that TLV is necessarily a bad thing, but certainly ASN.1
>   is an elephantine mess.  Consider that one of its EARLY (ca 1988)
>   formal specifications is over 400 pages.  Consider the BNF specification
>   for ANSI C is 6 pages!  The "standard reference text" for ANSI C is,
>   including the BNF and index, 272 pages.

X.208 (ASN:1988) is 48 pages.  How did you arrive at 400+ pages?

Bancroft Scott

Follow-Ups:

Re: encodings: do we need binary at all?

From: "marcus (m.d.) leech" <mleech@bnr.ca>

Prev by Date: going back to stone axes
Next by Date: Re: Binary vs. ASCII for certificates
Prev by thread: Re: encodings: do we need binary at all?
Next by thread: Re: encodings: do we need binary at all?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread