Hi Paul,
----------
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC[SMTP:phoffman@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 2:33 PM
To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2510bis-03.txt (and rfc2511bis- 01.txt)
At 2:31 PM -0500 3/2/01, Carlisle Adams wrote:
>If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to run the modules
>through a syntax checker and give me a list of the necessary
>changes, I'd be happy to incorporate them. My sense, however, from
>what you've listed below, is that the changes required will be
>sufficiently minor that they can all be taken care of during the
>last "48 HOURS NOTICE" editing cleanup window from the RFC Editor.
>Therefore, I see no reason to hold up progression of either of these
>documents.
Carlisle: I take it from your comments that you don't think that any
of Phil's suggestions need to be implemented because no one tripped
over them. Is that correct? If so, it's fine that we don't make the
changes, but that is *quite* different than changing them after
everyone has used the current code for testing.
I guess I wasn't subtle enough... :-)
Yes, that was essentially my underlying message. I'm certainly happy to make changes if they need to be made in order for the code to compile (and I will humbly submit to your suggestion that this occur *before* submission to the RFC Editor), but I do wonder how serious this can be if no one has ever mentioned having a problem here before.
The PKIX meeting is in exactly 2 weeks. How about if I report at that meeting whether these drafts can be progressed as they are or whether yet-another-revision is required?
Phil: do you have evidence that any ASN.1 compiler other than the one
you listed has problems with the code as it stands now?
Unless I get concrete evidence that a "currently-employed" ASN.1 compiler fails to compile this code, the drafts will remain unchanged. (Phil may provide evidence for a compiler of his choosing if he wishes, but at least one set of corrections must come from one of the implementors that have been involved in the interop testing all this time.) Does this seem fair enough? After all, the implementors now have interoperable code; we shouldn't make them re-tinker all the way back to the ASN.1 compilation stage unless there is a good reason.
Carlisle.