RE: comment on draft-ietf-ltans-dssc-01.txt

["Turner, Sean P." <turners@xxxxxxxx>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Sylvester [mailto:Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:30 AM
>To: Paul Thorpe
>Cc: Turner, Sean P.; ietf-ltans@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: comment on draft-ietf-ltans-dssc-01.txt
>
>
>
>>  in 1994 and
>> replaced with the "open type" which allows ASN.1 compilers to 
>> explicitly link the contents of the "open type" field with 
>the object identifier.
>>
>>   
>In other LTANS specifications the following approach is used:
>
>One module is specified in 'CURRENT' ASN.1 syntax.
>An alternative module is done for 'old' compilers with is an 
>almost 88 syntax Which one is normative is still a debate (as 
>in another group).
>
>In some specs also an XSD schema is defined. For LTAP at least 
>the XSD is automatically generated from the ASN.1 and produces 
>the same encodings and an XER encoding of the ASN.1
>
>Besides that and in response to Sean.
>
>Although a module can reuse a name that is defined in another 
>module, I agree that this may be confusing.
>

I like the idea of moving to the later ASN.1. The reason we've been stopped
in the past was the lack of an open source compiler. We basically have one
now with the a2c compiler.

Peter - are you saying you don't want to import code, you'd rather grow your
own? If you do I'd like to see how the current syntax would break out if I
specified an elliptic curve and all it's parameters. It would be an long
sequence of 'stuff' that you'd have to write up some verbiage about the 1st
element of the sequence was this, the next this, and so on. That seems like
an unworkable solution to me.

spt