Re: Document Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X)' to Experimental RFC

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson
<simon at josefsson.org> wrote:

> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com> 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.

But that was precisely where the other thread, if I recall, came
out.  It wasn't an argument against complexity.  It was an
argument about introducing another optional way of doing things
because we _know_ that many options lead to worse
interoperability.  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 form
over the well-established ASN.1 form for which there is existing
deployment, existing tools, etc.  Put differently, we all know
that this _can_ be done but, if there is another solution
already out there, widely deployed, and in active use, a clear
explanation about _why_ it should be done and under what
circumstances it is expected to useful is in order.

That suggestion about an explanation was a specific request
about the document, not idle theorizing about the character of
ASN.1 or the nature of complexity.

And, again, pretending that the discussion didn't occur
impresses me as a little strange.

     john


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf