Re: [TLS] TLS grammar checker?

mrex@sap.com (Martin Rex) Fri, 21 June 2013 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mrex@sap.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A3121F9E2A for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96u51ZATJ6Ny for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de (smtpde02.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC98D21F9644 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail05.wdf.sap.corp by smtpde02.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id r5LJLtig010755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:21:55 +0200 (MEST)
In-Reply-To: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711B20DE385@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:21:55 +0200
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <20130621192155.A2C451A840@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
From: mrex@sap.com
X-SAP: out
Cc: "TLS@ietf.org (tls@ietf.org)" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS grammar checker?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:22:05 -0000

Salz, Rich wrote:
> > ASN.1 ... is ... widely ... known ... and ... understood ?
> 
> Compared to the alternatives, yes.
> Look at what data  definition languages are used in RFC's. 

To illustrate one of my many problems with ASN.1 complexity and lack
of clarity, I was recently wondering on OCSP, whether it is permissible
or not _on_receipt_ when the "RevodedInfo->revocationTime" element

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2560#page-9

or the CRL Extension "CRL References" "CrlID->crlTime" element

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2560#section-4.4.2

contains a date&time with only 2-year, where exactly in ASN.1 it
is described how the receiver ought to be implemented, and whether
support for 2-digit years in GeneralizedTime is a "MAY", "SHOULD NOT"
or "MUST NOT".

 
-Martin