> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Arguments on complexity are too easy to make. Every time a > proposal is > > made I hear the complexity argument used against it. > Everything we do > > is complex. Computers are complex. Committee process > usually increases > > complexity somewhat. > > > > If an argument can always be used what is the discrimination power? > > How about using answers to the question "Is this complexity needed?" > as a discriminator? > > Sometimes, there is no better solution than one with certain > complexity. That isn't inherently bad. > > I'm not sure the need for this particular complex solution > was demonstrated. I don't recall anyone defending it. The > experimental track thus seems appropriate, if it should be > published at all.
Define 'need'. Define 'complexity'. >From my point of view a device that has two parser stacks on it is more >complex than a device that can do it all with a single stack. Thus translating >SNMP into XML makes excellent sense and reduces complexity overall. I don't think it makes sense to translate every ASN.1 protocol into XML, particularly if there is an XML infrastructure for the purpose. But I would certainly prefer to be able to support SNMP on an XML centric device without having to provide an ASN.1 stack. Further I would like there to be consistency in the way that SNMP/XML and LDAP/XML to map to the traditional ASN.1 versions. It's a legitimate architectural approach and the IETF should not take sides against it. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
