Have any RFC protocols been specified using formal tools for their
message interaction? I know a few use ASN.1, such as SNMP and LDAP,
which have come from the ITU-T, but that's only for specifying the
syntax (abstract or transfer), not the interaction of messages.
From what I've been able to tell, the only mention to SDL in the
RFCs is in relation to Simple Data Link. I'm currently just learning
about ASN.1, so I don't know much about this space at the moment.
On 18/11/2005, at 5:28 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
• Cameron Kerr • ✉ ckerr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx • •
• Telecommunications Teaching Fellow & SysAdmin •
• ✎ http://humbledown.org/blog/ • ✆ 021 4117 644 •
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf