Subject: RE: ASN.1 vs XML (used to be RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-scvp- 00.txt)

From: Alan Lloyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:01:05 +1000

Andrew - stop being so direct :-)

What we need to do is support a ASN.1 replacement program for
SNMP, PKCS standards, traffic management standards and onboard
equipment, financial standards, Defence standards, OCSP, LDAP, X.500 and
LDAP objects, etc, etc  and redefine all the object identifiers in the
world as their syntax would change - as the format of these  are defined
in the ASN.1 standard...Thats all :-)

I get the impression this thread is based on the issue that a
certificate format is better in XML rather than ASN.1 - rather than the
knowledge that ASN.1 represents the Presentation layer of the OSI
reference model in that it maps internal application layer structures in
C, etc (the internal syntax) to the transfer syntax TLV system  (ASN.1
BER/DER) via the production of code/definitions derived from an ASN.1
compiler using the input of ASN.1 definitions ... as provided in the
respective standards. Standard which relate to the development of
distributed applications.

Perhaps some reading on the application of ASN.1 as a distributed
information systems tool and the application of Object Identifiers for
protocol and information and where this approach to systems is used
might sway the decision here..

regards alan

----------
From: Andrew Probert
To: 'PKIX-List'
Sent: 7/12/99 11:05:37 AM
Subject: RE: ASN.1 vs XML (used to be RE: I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-scvp- 00.txt)

Get real guys.

There's millions of deployed certificate-using clients in Microsoft
(CryptoAPI), Netscape (PKCS#11), Lotus (PKCS#11), not to mention Java
implementations and hardware vendor implementations like CISCO, that
have
built-in decoders for certificates 

These mega-mass market products are on 2 year lead-times, so next year's
products are already half constructed now.  Not to mention Win2000 that
is
imminent.

They work, they are out there.

Not to mention the CAs who have got sizeable investment in certificate
issuing systems that already work and deployed and vendors that have
investment in CSPs and PKCS#11 drivers for smartcards.  We Rotek/SNS are
in
these categories and we certainly do not want to rebuild, we are busy
deploying!

There are video player manufacturers, CD-ROM manufacturers who have
voted
for the 'best' standard and still been left behind by the market.  I am
not
going to argue the benefits of XML versus ASN.1, but suggest that the
market
and major players have voted with their feet a few years ago.

Andew Probert
Rotek Consulting   http://www.rotek.com.au
a Division of Secure Network Solutions
Tel  +61 3 9690 8877
Fax +61 3 9690 8171

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:06:03 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Lloyd <[email-masked]>
To: ''PKIX-List' ' <[email-masked]>; 'Andrew Probert '
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 8:01 AM
Subject: RE: ASN.1 vs XML (used to be RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-
00.txt)

> in the ASN.1 standard...Thats all :-)

I want to be clear about what I was saying by way of XML v. ASN.1; I dont
think that XML is 'better' than ASN.1 for representing the cert in, but I do
think that there is no reason that an XML representation of the cert
structure is also not an issue. The cert structure is the cert structure and
who cares what it is represented in. The fact that ASN.1 is the 'official'
language and syntax used to represent ISO models is neat and spiffy, but the
fact that the industry is gravitating towards using XML is another big
reason that cert formats should be recognized as being representation
independent.

> might sway the decision here..

No, there is no need IMHO (not that I was ever humble...)..

The sheer fact of what XML is and the position it has within the IETF and
other standards orgs, plus the growing number of tools that use it, I think
that to shut it out and say that certs are ASN.1 is just a bit shortsided.

> regards alan

Todd