[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: going back to stone axes
At 17:11 2/28/96, Jim McCoy wrote:
>I would suggest those who favor ASN.1 [...]
> actually *produce examples* that other people
>can look at and examine.
It might be good at this point for me to post the accumulated list of
uses of certificates and get at least one person on the X.509 side to
show how normal X.509 certs will handle each of the examples.
For those who want ASN.1 but not X.509, I have no clue.....
From ???@??? Wed Feb 28 16:20:56 1996
Received: from callandor.cybercash.com (callandor1.cybercash.com) by cybercash.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA02396; Wed, 28 Feb 96 14:08:44 EST
Received: by callandor.cybercash.com; id OAA08973; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 14:18:48 -0500
Received: from infinity.c2.org(184.108.40.206) by callandor.cybercash.com via smap (g3.0.3)
id xma008969; Wed, 28 Feb 96 14:18:40 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by infinity.c2.org (8.7.4/8.6.9)
id KAA11586 for spki-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 10:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Community ConneXion: Privacy & Community: <URL:http://www.c2.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 18:03:39 GMT
From: "William Allen Simpson" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: RE: going back to stone axes
> From: "FreedmanJ" <FreedmanJ@mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com>
> >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
Ranting? Seems like an attempt to focus the discussion to me.
Indeed, I don't see how it fits the definition: "noisy and meaningless
declamation; boisterous talk".
The longest and mostly pointless postings have thus far _all_ been from
the advocates of ASN.1 and X.509.
> 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.
But then, I don't think that I am alone in thinking that a specification
language is unneeded and unwanted, and that protocols should be
specified by the actual usage and implementation. Good for us --
neither is "alone".
This WG was forming to find a "simple" solution. It's in the name.
> Emotional,ex cathedra statements such as the above are not helpful.
Emotional? I see no reference to "love", "hate", "shame" or even "joy",
unless you take "fun" as a synonym. Perhaps you are mistaking his
actual statements for the emotion that it raises in yourself.
Seems to me to be a clear statement of topics outside the group's agenda,
as annunciated by its founder. Cannot think who better to remind us....
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2