[rfc-i] FW: Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher
ietfdbh at comcast.net
Sat Aug 17 05:57:15 PDT 2013
>A few nits regrading MIB module checking...
>On 8/16/13 4:16 PM, "Sandy Ginoza" <sginoza at amsl.com> wrote:
>>2) In the following, we suggest that "ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
>>MIB-related details)" be updated to reflect "MIBs". Although MIB modules
>>are written using a subset of ASN.1, the RPC does not check all ASN.1, we
>>only check MIBs. This change will reflect what is done in practice. If
>>the intent is to actually require the RPC to check all ASN.1, please let
>>us know and we will discuss checking tools with the RSE and IAD.
>>1.3. Validation of formal languages
>>The RPC should validate the syntax of sections of documents containing
>>formal languages. In particular ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and
>>MIB-related details), YANG, ABNF, and XML should be verified using one or
>>more tools as approved by the RSE.
>MIB Modules are written using version 2 of the SMI standard, a formal
>language which is an IETF-standardized "adapted subset" of ASN.1-1988.
>So MIB validation might be more accurately called SMI validation or SMIv2
>validation (but SMIv3 could be done at some future date.)
>So s/ASN.1/SMI/ or s/ASN.1/SMIv2/
>ASN.1 has moved on since the 1988 subset used for SMI.
>There are tools to validate against the more current ASN.1 standard.
>I'm not sure how much current ASN.1 is used in IETF documents, but if it
>is, then you might want to validate it.
>I think there is very little current ASN.1 usage in IETF documents.
>Ietfdbh at comcast.net
More information about the rfc-interest