[dathinab]

how did you end up believing that?

- ASN.1 is a set of a docent different binary encodings

- ASN.1's schema languages is IMHO way better designed then Protobuf but also more complex as it has more features

- ASN.1 can encode much more different data layouts (e.g. things where in Protobuf you have to use "tricks") each being layout in the output differently depending on the specific encoding format, annotations on the schema and options during serialization

- ASN.1 has many ways to represent things more "compact" which all come with their own complexity (like bit mask encoded boolean maps)

overall the problem of ASN.1 is that it's absurdly over engineered leading to you needing to now many hundred of pages of across multiple standard documents to just implement one single encoding of the docent existing ones and even then you might run into ambiguous unclear definitions where you have to ask on the internet for clarification

if we ignore the schema languages for a moment most senior devs probably can write a crappy protobuf implementation over the weekend, but for ASN.1 you might not even be able to digest all relevant standards in that time :/

Realistically if ASN.1 weren't as badly overengineered and had shipped only with some of the more modern of it's encoding formats we probably would all be using ASN.1 for man things including maybe your web server responses and this probably would cut non image/video network bandwidth by 1/3 or more. But then the network is overloaded by image/video transmissions and similar not other stuff so I guess who cares???!???

[cryptonector]

> Realistically if ASN.1 weren't as badly overengineered and had shipped only with some of the more modern of it's encoding formats we probably would all be using ASN.1 for man things including maybe your web server responses and this probably would cut non image/video network bandwidth by 1/3 or more. But then the network is overloaded by image/video transmissions and similar not other stuff so I guess who cares???!???

ASN.1 was not over-engineered in 1990. The things that kept it from ruling the world are:

- the ITU-T specs for it were _not_ free back then

- the syntax is context dependent, so using a LALR(1) parser generator to parse ASN.1 is difficult, though not really any more than it is to parse C with a LALR(1) parser generator, but yeah if it had had a LALR(1)-friendly syntax then ASN.1 would have been much easier to write tooling for

- competition from XDR, DCE/MS RPC, XML, JSON, Protocol Buffers, Flat Buffers, etc.

The over-engineering came later, as many lessons were learned from ASN.1's early years. Lessons that the rest of the pack mostly have not learned.

[otabdeveloper4]

ASN.1 doesn't have a schema language. It has a schema spec, how you encode the schema is up to you. This is a huge boon.

ASN.1 has many encoding standards, but you don't need to implement them all, only the specific one for your needs.

ASN.1 has a standard and an easy to follow spec, which Protobuf doesn't.

In sum: I could cobble together a working ASN.1 implementation over a weekend. In contrast, getting to a clean-room working Protobuf library is a month's work.

Caveat: I have not had to deal with PKI stuff. My experience with ASN.1 is from LDAP, one of the easiest protocols to implement ever, IMO.

[dathinab]

my experience is from helping a coworker writing a ASN.1 serialization/deserialization library limited to a subset of encodings but (close to) the full spec each encoding ;)

> to follow spec, which Protobuf doesn't.

I can't say so personally, but from what I heard from the coworker I helped the spec isn't always easy to follow as there are many edge cases where you can "guess" what they probably mean but they aren't precise enough. Through they had a surprising amount of success to get clarification from authoritative sources (I think some author or maintainer of the standard but I'm not fully sure, it was a few years ago).

In general there seem to be a huge gap between writing something which works for some specific usage(s) of ASN.1 and something which works "in general/all the standard" (for the relevant encodings (mainly DER, but also at least part of non-DER BER as far as I remember)).

> Protobuf doesn't.

yes but it's wire format is relatively simple and documented (not as a specification but documented anyway) so getting something going which can (de-)serialize the wire format really isn't that hard and the mapping from that to actual data types is also simpler (through also won't work for arbitrary types due to dump design limitations). I would be surprised if you need a month of work to get something going there. Through if you want to reproduce all the tooling eco-system or special ways some libraries can interact with it (e.g. in place edits etc.) it's a different project altogether. What I mean is just a (de-)serializer for the wire format with appropriate mapping to data types (objects,structs, whatever the language you use prefers).

[otabdeveloper4]

> Through if you want to reproduce all the tooling eco-system

But for Protobuf you kinda have to. Needing to parse the .proto files and comform to Google's code gen ideas is implied.

For ASN you just need to follow a spec, not a concrete implementation.

[cryptonector]

> ASN.1's schema languages is IMHO way better designed then Protobuf but also more complex as it has more features

Yes, but you can use a subset of ASN.1. You don't have to implement all of x.680, let alone all of x.681, x.682, and x.683.

[anentropic]

for "docent", do you mean "dozen"?

I had to look up https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/docent