Re: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Tue, 04 December 2007 18:45 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izclg-0005dS-7I; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:45:16 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Izclf-0005dJ-Kw for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:45:15 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izclf-0005d7-BI for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:45:15 -0500
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izcld-0008Ui-Un for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:45:15 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=OFadx3CkK7iZlm456p+tXObK50y48gmGHO/xvZMX++4dDVNbT1jpCoD0T+SqtYFu; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [66.167.202.36] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Izcla-0006Kh-Bl for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:45:10 -0500
Message-ID: <002a01c836a6$10051a20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
References: <20071204164243.GA23212@nic.fr><3F673E84-8B16-4E1C-AB68-27A7EB3DEB35@tzi.org> <p06240810c37b49d7ff6c@[130.129.20.216]>
Subject: Re: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:47:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a4beb055f130b31ae59e602d31f4b64092a1004e6c8c5961350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 66.167.202.36
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

Hi -

> From: "Paul Hoffman" <phoffman@imc.org>
> To: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
> Cc: <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Do we now require change control on specifications we use?
..
> The changes in ASN.1 have had little or no effect on the IETF. 
...

I disagree.  The dropping of the MACRO notation was one of the factors
(though by no means the only one) behind the migration from SMIv1 to SMIV2
in SNMP, and one of the reasons why SMIv2 is *not* defined using ASN.1
notation, even though it makes reference to ASN.1 types, etc.  The term
"adapted subset" really just means that there are some familiar tokens
in the language.  The whole SNMPv1->v2 transition was an *extremely*
painful process, and the net management old-timers cannot help but
be wary.

I also know first-hand that the changes caused an enormous amount of
grief for the CMIP folk in JTC1/SC21/WG4.  We were just very glad
we hadn't based GDMO on ASN.1, despite significant pressure to do so.

Randy