Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers

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

 



Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin,

I agree that we need to be able to make complex protocol's readable in IETF,
That is why I am doing an update ID for the RFC2119, I know many don't
think it is a right thing to do, but I think maybe in future while
making new versions of the update draft I will get to better
discussions,

AB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:21:41 -0800

> I think there are cases of standards of extreme complexity, such as SIP,
> where such profiles may be useful, because otherwise interoperability
> cannot be achieved.

I would not call SIP a standard of extreme complexity, but anyway there is
more and more protocols on a similar complexity - just two protocols that I am
working with currently - RSTP 2.0 and RELOAD - are of similar complexity.

> But perhaps the lesson for the IETF here is slightly different - don't
> design standards which allow that degree of complexity in the first place.

There is no simple solution to a complex problem, so as the problems we try to
solve increase in complexity, so are our solutions to them.  But perhaps you
are right in a way.  Perhaps the problem is simply that RFC 2119, and the
issues I and other see with the approach in using as little of the keywords as
possible, was designed for a time when problems - and solutions - were
simpler.  Perhaps RFC 2119 imposes an upper limit on the complexity that a
protocol developed with it can reach, and we are just hitting this threshold
more and more often.

I am not saying that it is a bad thing - I certainly like simple protocols,
but perhaps the IETF is simply the wrong place for developing complex protocols.

- --
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc at petit-huguenin.org


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