Re: Status of the WG

Michael Kirkham wrote:

> As a compiler vendor I have a vested interest in supporting SMIng in
> whatever form it takes, but not settling the ASN.1-like vs. New Grammar
> issue seems to me to be a little detrimental to the SMIng effort.  More
> recent discussions seemed to be based around the idea that SMIng would
> continue to be ASN.1-like, which I think is unfortunate.

There are many reasons for preferring or not preferring things related 
to ASN.1, and I have to admit to being on the opposite side to Michael - 
surprise, surprise!  But I hope that everybody realises that ASN.1 
(standards and tools) now provides the ability to generate both compact 
binary encodings *and* XML documents from *the same* ASN.1 
specification. Of course, it should be "proper" ASN.1, not a bastardised 
version, in order to maximise use of existing tools.

(Just stirring the pot and re-opening the argument!  No-one need reply!)

John L