Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic

  
The one time I had to look at it was for H.323, which I believe is 
still quite prevalent, although possibly losing ground to SIP?
  
according to the ITU, LDAP even uses it?
  
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/asn1/uses/index.htm
  
Looks like it is used in some applications that take some fairly 
serious heat (e.g. WiMAX, UMTS and LTE).
  
Still not suggesting it for HTTP tho :)
  
  
  

------ Original Message ------
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>;"Mark Nottingham" 
<mnot@mnot.net>;"Kevin Cathcart" 
<kevincathcart@gmail.com>;"ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 1/04/2012 7:21:04 p.m.
Subject: Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic
>In message <CAHBU6ivKQypwvHPf09FjENm57DsPnH=qehbRSknHW+jpyo75dw@mail.gmail.com>
>, Tim Bray writes:
>
>
>>
>>Funny you should mention that.  ASN.1 has historically been a
>>miserable failure;
>>
>
>
>About the only place ASN.1 survives, are in contexts where the OSI
>protocols was an inspiration or basis for the work:  SNMP and X.50[0-9]
>
>For SNMP, ASN.1 was a political trick to make SNMP acceptable as a
>"gateway drug" to CMIP.
>
>For X.50[0-9] I don't know the story.
>
>--
>Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
>phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
>FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
>Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 11:22:57 UTC