[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: going back to stone axes
On 2/28, 10:20:53, Bancroft Scott to Perry Metzger:
>> [Opinion as Chair]
>> 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.
>It makes sense that both sides of the arguments be aired. You may
>wish to relate the bad experiences that some have had implementing a
>couple protocols that use ASN.1, fine. But don't try to stifle
>arguments that relate the positive experiences that so many have had
>in implementing protocols that use ASN.1. The fact is that the number
>of well designed protocols out there that use ASN.1 and whose
>implementations have been greatly simplified by its use far outweigh
>the couple botched designs that you keep harping on.
>Also, if you are going to invoke the voice of the chair you might want
>to be less partial. Take a look at the mail over the last few days
>and you will observe that the only times that you or Carl Ellison
>speak up for moving the discussion away from X.509 or ASN.1 are when
>their positive aspects are being brought to light. Not nice!
I agree totally, Bancroft...it has been a long time since I last saw such a
great (and deplorable) difference between a "politically-correct" charter
statement, and the behavior of the chair! Carl I can understand, in that
he has no obligation (yet) to conform to the charter proposal. I believe
that Perry should re-think his position.
Best Regards, --Jim--
<< Jim Sanders, Staff Scientist - Transaction Security >>
<< NonStop Networking Division, Tandem Computers Incorporated >>
<< Voice: 408-285-4192, FAX: 408-285-2380, http://www.tandem.com >>