[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: going back to stone axes
Unknown Microsoft mail form. Approximate representation follows.
From: FreedmanJ on Wed, Feb 28, 1996 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: going back to stone axes
RFC Header:Received: by mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;28 Feb 1996 10:55:26 U
Received: from infinity.c2.org by delphi.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;
Wed, 28 Feb 1996 15:54:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by infinity.c2.org (8.7.4/8.6.9)
id FAA11514 for spki-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 05:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Community ConneXion: Privacy & Community: <URL:http://www.c2.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: Host perry@localhost didn't use
To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bancroft Scott)
cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: going back to stone axes
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Feb 1996 20:32:38 EST."
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:45:29 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>In any case, I want to make something very clear before we continue
>down this rathole much further. This group does *not* exist to simply
>be another rubber stamp for the X.509 protocol, and there certainly
>does not seem to be consensus thus far for any sort of specification
>language for our formats, let alone ASN.1. Given this, I'd say that
>there is a limit to how much use rehashing old debates about
>ASN.1. Its lots of fun, of course, because all of us have stock
>arguments we've been using for years and thus it allows us to avoid
>having to think about what it is that we really want to design, but
>other than making procrastination easy it probably isn't productive.
I think its a little early to engage in ranting and , having read Schillers
letter in regards to ASN1, I think you missed a lot of context. BTAIM I don't
think I am alone in thinking that some sort of specification language and
standardized encoding rules would be nice as opposed to an ad hoc encoding
everytime something new comes up. I also don't think I am alone in speculating
that ASN1 is (or could be ) such a language. It has problems and before we
jettison it it would be nice to figure out what the problems are/were.
Emotional,ex cathedra statements such as the above are not helpful.