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