[rfc-i] [IAOC] Community Input Sought on SOWs for RFC Production Center and RFC Publisher

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Sat Aug 17 11:22:08 PDT 2013

In my experience, the RFC Editor relies on authors to compile non-MIB ASN.1 modules.


On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:16 -0700, Sandy Ginoza 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.
>> Current:
>> 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.      
> I was a participant in and co-chair of a WG (Kerberos) which produced a
> lot of documents containing ASN.1 other than in MIBs.  Before
> considering a document ready for publication, we generally required
> verification that its ASN.1 module compiles.  Usually this was done by
> one or more implementors, who already had handy the tools and
> dependencies required to perform such a check.
> While I have no objection in principle to the RPC doing this check, it
> seems likely that the burden of doing so would be significant and, at
> least for IETF-stream documents, not worthwhile for the relatively small
> gains realized.  This sort of check should be done before a document is
> ever submitted to the IESG, let alone the RPC.
> -- Jeff

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list