-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/08/2013 05:41 AM, Dick Franks wrote: > On 5 January 2013 19:14, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@xxxxxxx> wrote: > [snip] >> >> Another way to look at it would be to run the following experiment: >> >> 1. Someone design a new protocol, something simple but not obvious, and >> write in a formal language and keep it secret. >> > Which raises the obvious question: Why do we not write protocol specs in a > formal specification language instead of struggling with the ambiguities of > natural language? > > Theorem provers and automated verification tools could then be brought to > bear on both specifiations and implementations. > IMO, the main problem with using a formal specification language is that it would made RFCs a little bit too close to mathematics for some people, as math is not patentable. So do not expect any change in this direction. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ7MGHAAoJECnERZXWan7EFSEP/0fyEuzFAQMoGvgKFxZG5ZKZ H94ALXz6pFiSyBC9xImwlUR1TzcKqQbu5BMkPjirsWq/Xt8vlRIEuv7DzpHg0Dp6 A4IuU6t/ddtf9FEHRdvmkUEkHrKd99BjiIBywRoPCRgnqPhYrk+Q7OmyFZzz6BI4 tobQLgIiS9EPZDync9iu8atfubMhuy95VM+v6VfIfOLkdw6HcJWUArRXMP5j2rgK AD7vQ9SmYXI1x3ZFVjTzWDg4KCAk1uET7+r2QyvmYMgWS3B+bMTl0vCO6kz8TDzw B8f6thEXZ2/VzLOmoklFxN3ZhR+VDyMzHC0BWgD1Ro1YNogB2G2En8HLlxrmoj6e T2PIZNnT9xgzkVRkTDmerwLlg7dwUjn8nK/462WTlCRcrAVQ52PHzfDUlBDBdX+A l10Teah5PbpE1cK285b2CX+nbXbaR3HrhXFdTwvfLruExgsm571isfH3WVmfxXsI z+3hl+HW92FQ7nreV+BrX/BqwAMpcjG4lkNlM1GgduDuv/rv1nh0lKD9dazNvwmg r7Qx8pi6TyYL2YbKb0GPRSUACNR8qAXOWHWD3TMuJqiuzIZFj1wCm0mqwzNt7KFG 6RFyTez/7jZWqXx8RPJ1awRnDSv5wiKcH2lgI0h6kvxWdVtnwGyWb3e/W/uY3//p hcBfwtvCdfw/OiwxicJv =PDy4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----