[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ASN.1 and Kerberos version 5

To: [email protected] (Jeffrey I. Schiller), [email protected]
Subject: Re: ASN.1 and Kerberos version 5
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 95 15:51:09 -0400
Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "02 Sep 95 12:00:04 MDT." <ac6e483800021004fa65@[18.162.1.1]>
Sender: [email protected]


I don't think that the concept of ASN.1 is as bad as Jeff makes out. If it worked 
then ASN.1 would be very very usefull. But is just plain don't.

ASN.1 is worse than useless, it means that a very good idea is rendered unusable 
because of a baddly botched implementation.

The ambiguities of the ASN.1 spec are at least as bad as Jeff makes out. I have 
attempted to implement an ASN.1 compiler but I have little cofidence in its 
correctness because the structure of ASN.1 is so unweildy. It is not just ANY 
that causes problems, IMPLICIT is a complete cock up.


ASN.1 is poor because it is unecessarily complex, has little intelectual 
coherence and has been extended in a manner which conflicts with the original 
design principle. 

Is it any coincidence that ASN.1 backwards is the name of a well known 
organisation? Also the only person who has defended ASN.1 to my face happened to 
work for that organisation once.


So the motto is: ASN.1 - Just say NO!

		Phill

References:
- ASN.1 and Kerberos version 5
  - From: [email protected] (Jeffrey I. Schiller)

Prev by Date: Re: SSLRef (SSLtelnet)
Next by Date: Re: SSLRef (SSLtelnet)
Prev by thread: ASN.1 and Kerberos version 5
Next by thread: Re: ASN.1 and Kerberos version 5
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread