RE: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



There is a way, develop a highly targetted formalism for the specific
problem.

This is hard to apply to existing specs because they tend to be
inconsistent. If you are required to apply a formalism you have to be
much more consistent in your design approach.

I did this for the finite state portions of FTP, NNTP and SMTP in 1993
when I was working on HTTP. With HTTP at the time there was not a lot of
state.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:28 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: Steve Crocker; Masataka Ohta; Yaakov Stein; 
> ietf@xxxxxxxx; Stewart Bryant
> Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)
> 
> Phillip,
> 
> I spent a large fraction of my professional life in pursuit 
> of this alluring and seemingly simple goal.  Here's a small 
> challenge: Take
> *any* IETF protocol and write down the formal specification.  
> Never mind the proof of correctness; that can come later.  
> (And with it an extended discussion of the underlying logical 
> system, the formal system for representing the protocol 
> specification, and the proof system you have in mind for 
> carrying out the proof.)  Of course, the formal specification 
> will have to be readable and understandable to the general 
> population, and there will have to ready agreement that  
> it does embody the desired properties.  Pick something simple.   
> Perhaps IP?  Feel free to leave out messy details like 
> performance issues if you wish.  Just something simple and 
> instructive to make your point.  And in light of the other 
> issues being discussed, don't feel constrained to use ASCII.  
> Use any notation and tools you like.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Crocker
> steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> On Nov 17, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> 
> > If we want to enforce simpler, more accurate design the 
> best way to do 
> > this would be to require a formal proof of correctness before 
> > accepting a specification.
> >
> > Requiring people to use 1960s technology is not a way to achieve 
> > simplicity.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 
> On Behalf 
> >> Of Masataka Ohta
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:30 AM
> >> To: Yaakov Stein
> >> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; Stewart Bryant
> >> Subject: Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)
> >>
> >> Yaakov Stein wrote:
> >>
> >>>> It's good that protocols needing more than 72 ASCII 
> characters are 
> >>>> forbidden.
> >>
> >>> Just imagine what elegantly simple protocols we would have if we 
> >>> required the descriptions to be in Morse code.
> >>
> >> Good idea.
> >>
> >> It's a better approach to enforce much simpler protocols.
> >>
> >> 						Masataka Ohta
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]