Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X)' to
Experimental RFC
I would appreciate it is someone would repost this to the IETF list.
First, I want to say that I support an ASN.1 compiler in C++ and am
considering a rewrite of that compiler's translated runtime to ADA to
leverage some of ADA's
Ned == Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And it was a suggestion/ request that, before
this document was published in _any_ form, that it at least
acquire a clear discussion as to when one would
On 2007-03-14 04:29, David Kessens wrote:
John,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:04:52AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
If the IESG is going to claim a silent majority in favor of
approving this document, so be it. But to claim that there were
no Last Call comments and that those that were solicited
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 07:47 +0200 Pekka Savola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, The IESG wrote:
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-07.txt
...
Working Group Summary
This document set was not produced by an IETF
I saw almost no technical comments on the documents. Most of
the last call comments I saw were on a side track about
copyright issues.
The one somewhat technical comment that I logged, from Tom Yu,
didn't result in any changes but was certainly influential on
me in agreeing to the documents
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, The IESG wrote:
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-07.txt
...
Working Group Summary
This document set was not produced by an IETF working group, but by an
individual. IETF
: Document Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X
(ASN.X)' to Experimental RFC
I saw almost no technical comments on the documents. Most of
the last call comments I saw were on a side track about
copyright issues.
The one somewhat technical comment that I logged, from Tom
Yu, didn't result
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 08:09:35AM -0700,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 76 lines which said:
Everything we do is complex.
There are degrees in complexity. Compare RFC 3912 with 3981, both
written by your co-workers :-)
So, I do not think that the complexity
At 7:47 AM +0200 3/13/07, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, The IESG wrote:
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-07.txt
...
Working Group Summary
This document set was not produced by an IETF working group, but by an
individual. IETF Last
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
.
-Original Message-
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:23 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Document Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X
(ASN.X)' to Experimental RFC
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 08:09:35AM -0700, Hallam
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.
pbaker == Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
pbaker I agree that there were no technical comments but the summary
pbaker states 'no comments'. Arguments on complexity are too easy to
pbaker make. Every time a proposal is made I hear the complexity
pbaker argument used against it.
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Ned == Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And it was a suggestion/ request that, before
this document was published in _any_ form, that it at least
acquire a clear discussion as to when one would select this
and LDAP.
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:13 PM
To: Simon Josefsson; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Pekka Savola
Subject: Re: Document Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:01 -0700 Andy Bierman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was going to raise this issue, but I deleted the mail when I
realized
this is going to be an Experimental RFC (according to the
subject line).
I don't think it harms interoperability to introduce an
John,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:04:52AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
If the IESG is going to claim a silent majority in favor of
approving this document, so be it. But to claim that there were
no Last Call comments and that those that were solicited were
positive is deeply problematic.
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 17:30 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Options are not necessarily complications.
The only point to having XER that I can see is if you intend
to allow an orderly transition from use of ASN.1 to use of
XML. Both standards do their job fine,
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, The IESG wrote:
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-07.txt
...
Working Group Summary
This document set was not produced by an IETF working group, but by an
individual. IETF Last Call produced no comments, and solicited
The IESG has approved the following documents:
- 'Robust XML Encoding Rules (RXER) for Abstract Syntax Notation One
(ASN.1) '
draft-legg-xed-rxer-07.txt as an Experimental RFC
- 'Encoding Instructions for the Robust XML Encoding Rules (RXER) '
draft-legg-xed-rxer-ei-04.txt as an
23 matches
Mail list logo
