Re: OCSP-X vs SCVP

[daniel ash <daniel.ash@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Peter H. Gien" wrote:

> Dan,
>
> Forgive me if I digress from the original topic.
> Let's agree that ASN.1 and XML are not really languages such as C and Java.
> As such, ASN.1 and XML are simply tag formats that are used to describe
> data. I cannot compile ASN.1 nor can I execute XML. The use of one or the
> other would not necessarily result in "code bloat". Data bloat yes.
>

I didn't intend to imply 'programming language'...  'language' is clear enough
in context.


>
> One thing that is for sure though, is that any budding VB programmer can
> open an XML document without any trouble. MSXML.DLL is already on their
> machine and it opens the document as if by magic. A little more study,
> effort and insight is needed to open an ASN.1 file. (OK, a lot more...)
>

You could find, or easily develop something to decode and "open" an ASN.1
structure.  I believe the argument stems from the fact that the syntax of XML
languages is easier to adopt for people who already have experience using
markup languages(which covers the large base of HTML programmers).... also that
the syntax is generally more intuitive.


>
> I'd like to add that going forward, XML should be a standard way of
> describing all PKIX data structures. Think what has happened to assembly
> programming? Delegated to the specialist backwaters of computing (Too much
> studying, effort and insight was required). It was replaced with C and
> shortly thereafter with C++. The same analogy applies to ASN.1 and XML. The
> standard that requires the least amount of intellectual effort to comprehend
> and implement is the one that wins. This does not always translate to the
> best standard!)
>
> So without sparking a riot, I'd like to agree with the rest of you who are
> advocating XML.
>
> Thanks
> Peter H. Gien
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dash@ns.secondary.com [mailto:dash@ns.secondary.com]On Behalf Of
> Dan Ash
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 6:36 PM
> To: ietf-pkix@imc.org
> Subject: RE: OCSP-X vs SCVP
>
> The SCVP draft defines syntax for both ASN.1 and XML  A question about
> this arose on the list a few months back, where it was mentioned that
> supporting both languages would:
>         -  cause "code bloat".
>         -  significantly increase the testing burden
>         -  and cause potential discrepancy when translating from one
> language to another.
>
> I might be completely off track here, but is it possible, and does it
> make sense to include within the definition of a protocol not only
> different languages to represent the content,  but also a specification
> of how to translate from one language to the another?  If so,  perhaps
> some arbitrary software (independent of the client or the server) could
> translate from one language to another... allowing both the client and
> the server to deploy in either language.  This might alleviate the
> problems mentioned above.
>
> In any case, this issue of ASN.1 vs XML is obviously a complex one.
> ASN.1 is ingrained in all of PKIX's work... while the user community is
> demanding XML..  and for PKIX to begin incorporating XML in anything, I
> think there needs to be a direction and a consistent strategy to move
> forward with.  If there isn't any general direction and strategy,  then
> I believe that we'd only be promoting confusion.  For this, I certainly
> agree with Ambarish....that the XML vs. ASN.1 topic should be discussed
> independently of OCSPv2 and SCVP so that it may be more clear of how we
> can and should proceed if and when it is decided to integrate XML
> representation into PKIX efforts.
>
> ... Also, I do agree that the topic should be awarded priority if it
> hasn't already.
>
> -dan