Re: Do we need another protocol?


Marshall Rose (mrose@nrtc-gremlin)
Fri, 03 Oct 86 09:38:59 -0700


    Well, the XDR/RPC isn't the only public-domain one around. The
    ISO/CCITT people have ASN.1 (similar to XDR) and ROS (simlar to RPC)
    which do roughly the same thing (but differently of course). ASN.1
    stands for abstract syntax notation, and ROS stands for remote
    operations. My (limited) understanding of XDR/RPC indicates that
    ASN.1 and ROS are somewhat more general, though both get the same
    thing done. As you'd expect, since I give away ISODE (an ISO
    development environment for TCP) for free, I'm biased towards the
    ISO approach.

    The big win, regardless of the brand of universal-data-exchange-format
    you use is that we can finally get away from the $1.10 netascii
    approach for client-server interactions that we've seen for the last
    10 years.

    The second big win, which is only now getting attention is that we
    are now a step closer generate program fragments from the data
    representation specifications. I know that in the current/next
    release of NFS, this capability exists. In ISODE, there's a yacc
    spin-off called pepy, which reads your instrumented formal spec and
    writes a code fragment that parses the ASN.1 structures into your
    own internal-form. I've used pepy on four projects now, and each
    time it was a major, major win.

/mtr



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:58 GMT