[xcbf] Re: E-mail discussions following our meeting

[Phil Griffin <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

John,

Agree with that below. 

One major change I would like to see is that your
focus turn more to the X9.84 ASN.1, our base schema,
as the primary input. On reading your first pass it
struck me that your focus was the BioAPI. 

As to looking at each BioAPI structure, I'd prefer that
you look instead at each ASN.1 type that is related to 
a BioAPI structure, then propose how the BioAPI values
map to the ASN.1 schema. This is the main part of the
standard that we need to complete rapidly. Following 
this description, I'd like you to close on each of these
with how a value of the ASN.1 type (and by association,
a value of the corresponding BIT field) is expressed
using Canonical XER.

I would like to see some ASN.1/XER tutorial information
if possible in an annex. This will help all of us to
help critique the XCBF work in general. I see it as
also a means for us to raise and discuss issues such as
whether or not it is best to transfer data in DER or XER,
and any of these sorts of related issues.

I'd like to see a normative references section, and I
and others will send you suggestions for what to include.
At the end of the game, if there is no reference in the
text of the standard to a given reference item it can be
deleted.

I'd like also to see an examples appendix that Alessandro
can contribute to. I'd like the three ASN.1 modules I'm
trying to craft go into another annex.

As to your current examples of how to write the BioAPI
call backs in ASN.1, please move those into an annex,
but do not discard them please, until we can decide if
this sort of thing should be included in our work. My
belief is that it probably should be viewed as out of
scope or deferred to the end of our work, or possibly
become a spin off project if folks are interested in
pursuing this.

Phil


John Larmouth wrote:
> 
> I am writing as Editor.
> 
> We seemed to agree that my document was the current base document,
> although there was little discussion on this.
> 
> I will be the first to agree that it is in pretty poor shape at present,
> so detailed comments on it may not be useful.  Certainly it has not been
> passed through clause by clause, and blood spilled over it, so it is a
> long way from an agreed document.
> 
> None-the-less, comments of a global nature on the direction it is taking
> and the structure it is indicating could be useful.  (Particularly any
> major disagreements with the approach and direction.)
> 
> It would also be useful, as far as is currently possible (given its
> current state) if e-mail discussions could be based around specific
> proposals for the addition of actual text, either to existing clauses or
> as new clauses or appendices.  I will try to incorporate such text (and
> comments from others on proposed text) for review at a future meeting.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> John L