"Randy Presuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi - > >> From: "Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:38 PM >> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-legg-xed-asd (Abstract Syntax Notation >> X(ASN.X)) to Proposed Standard > ... >> > Firstly, it is clear that you (and every other implementor using this >> > document) needs the ability to extract and use the ASN.1 include in >> > the document. That is already provided for in BCP 78. The text he >> > included is exactly the text that BCP 78 tells him to include to do >> > that. So there is no problem there. >> >> I explained in my note that BCP 78 does _not_ provide for that. If >> you disagree with that, I think you need to show where BCP 78 gives >> third parties the right to extract and use the ASN.1 module. > ... > > Section 5.2 of RFC 3978 addresses the issue, giving the necessary > incantation and using MIBs and PIBs as an example. There's nothing > about an ASN.1 module in this regard that's any different from PIBs > and MIBs.
Hi! The notices required by section 5.2 are not present in these documents, so that section doesn't apply. Btw, I don't think you meant to refer to section 5.2, since that is normally not used for standards track documents: These notices may not be used with any standards-track document or with most working group documents, except as discussed in Section 7.3 ... /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
