Re: [uddi-spec] ASN.1 notation as an alternative to XML Schema proposal

[Wai-Kwong Sam LEE <Sam.Lee@oracle.com>]

While Claus and Bob pointed out the technical difficulties of adopting 
ASN.1 that we should all consider, at a higher level, I think it'd be 
helpful for Garg and other ASN.1 experts to explain / elaborate on the 
motivation of using ASN.1 as opposed to XML, before jumping into the 
technical details of the ASN.1.

Garg's writeup seems to imply that the major reason is to make UDDI more 
acceptable in low-bandwidth environment (meaning mobile communication?). 
Garg, is that the primary motivation / requirement? Could you elaborate 
on it?

After we evaluate the motivation and the requirements, if requirements 
are important enough, I think we may still adopt the requirements; and 
we can then discuss the solution. Garg proposes a solution which can 
serve as a starting point.


- sam

Bob Atkinson wrote:
> I concur with Claus’ well-put thoughts.
> 
>  
> 
> The task of dealing with the signatures that Claus mentions is not a 
> small one. The heavy lifting of the design work of V3 in this respect 
> was coming up with an appropriate canonicalization algorithm for 
> XML-schema-specified XML (in the ASN.1 world this is in analogy to the 
> specification of the Distinguished (binary) Encoding Rules as opposed to 
> the Basic Encoding Rules). This algorithm is hand-in-glove intimate with 
> the expressivity of XML-schema (as were the DER with respect to the 
> expressivity of BER). Unless XML Schema and XML-encoded-ASN.1 were 
> entirely isomorphic (which would astound me, but I admit I do not know 
> for certain that they are not), then defining ASN.1 equivalents of the 
> UDDI v3 XML schemas than when XML Encoded and canonicalized by 
> ASN.1-derivied algorithms manages to preserve the signature will be a 
> Herculean task.
> 
>  
> 
> Shishir: Not that I’ve looked (sorry), but it is even the case that all 
> UDDI v2 XML instances which are valid according to the UDDI v2 XML 
> Schema definitions are in fact valid according to the XML Encoding Rules 
> (Basic or otherwise) of the sample ASN.1 schemas for UDDI v2 that you 
> provided? That is can we take reliably data produced according to the 
> XML Schema mechanism and validate it according the ASN.1-derived 
> mechanism? Can we reliably do it the other way around?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>  
> 
>                 Bob
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:19 AM
> *To:* 'GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US'; 'uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org'
> 
>  
> 
> Shishir,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for the details on ASN.1.
> 
>  
> 
> However, adding a notation alternative to XML Schema and a protocol 
> alternative to SOAP/HTTP to the set of UDDI Version 2 specifications at 
> this point in time seems not to be appropriate to me. There are other 
> schema notations, such as RELAX NG, and other protocols, such as HTTP 
> w/o SOAP, we could also consider, but we always limited our scope to the 
> most common ones so far.
> 
>  
> 
> I'm not saying that it is not useful to propose alternatives, but 
> since alternative schema notations and protocols should note change 
> UDDI's core, I'd rather like to see them added layered on top of the 
> UDDI specifications, for example, by starting with a technical note.
> 
>  
> 
> Also, since we are also in the process to finalize UDDI Version 3, any 
> alternatives should also work with this version. The issue with the 
> mapping of W3C XML Digital Signatures to ASN.1 that came up yesterday 
> should be one of the first items to be resolved in a Technical Note.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  Claus
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US 
> [mailto:shishir.garg@rd.francetelecom.com]
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 5. März 2003 02:55
> *To:* 'uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org'
> *Cc:* DUBUISSON Olivier FTRD/DTL/LAN; 'Rajul Gupta'; 'Paul Thorpe'; 
> 'Bancroft Scott'; 'Alexandru Czimbor'; CAHUZAC Maud / FTR&D / US
> *Subject:* [uddi-spec] ASN.1 notation as an alternative to XML Schema 
> proposal
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> As discussed briefly on today's call, here are the initial documents to 
> get the discussion going. The doc file contains a description of what is 
> in this proposal, along with a few examples to make the case clear.
> 
> We are not necessarily aiming to make it to the V2 specification (since 
> it was just sent to the OASIS board for review), but we are not sure if 
> it should just become a Technical Note and be left at that.
> 
> Lets look for all the feedback we can get on this proposal.
> 
> Regards,
> Shishir GARG.
> France Telecom R&D
> 650.875.1540
> shishir.garg@rd.francetelecom.com
> 
> Attached: Overview doc + UDDI V2 converted schemas
> 



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>