-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/15/2013 04:54 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > 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, Changing RFC 2119 would perhaps permit to manage more complex protocols, but this will delay the problem, not fix it. Perhaps there is no other solution than using formal languages when going beyond a threshold of complexity, and that definitively not something that will be done at the IETF. But perhaps there could be enough interest to create an IRTF working group, on the subject of writing specifications for complex protocols. > > 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@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) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ9VeLAAoJECnERZXWan7E+u0P/1howuEDFI+h9FSV77Cv2YBW u5+Kfj9fhPp0nhqLr8z/1Hc4YAK/+YPmQ0gDzO5SVtnMTZwE5N3RgPx+yglOZ11X peZdwNgftMTSZOwc2r1B/gdHdyeVgYtZnEFJicbVgxbW6VirRml8qtYrOGijeh5B CAneVVqjpF1ou3BXjvGoxCXyP0Tw/XCPt+6+vGYpZ8GApfVizECViYljyZrOeDEG ZW6vgGnBrV6G+vqRXJRRZELZu2WMnJaC2ADHfCpIdAKCTBKX6Lj7v+7Ni4IAjEYC Z6hEDynBwaNVODMAuglbmVfC5I2kB45M5JwLoVu8sbfhOrGEJi7CnHDTbi1jW1N/ 70ZdsQvHbDj0uJL4s6mulwnJOYCh3d7uqAeMEFM5uyMYA+U5/5Dr7RYOhrP/xD0Y U+Y/YlFz+TLncsio7aYnzEpdjfFDYnbeLLyE0TdjM1kIGPkeKA3GPAdJbW4mDXpg VAbxGgiS89mSXGOjhlUKjfMEmmF7R21e8kAcubonOp/chu/nqO821qE1lfAYNZ5i WGHUPPTB/p5iXmhkt9cHESlOB1suW5r5y4Qq5qkz376FraIHIQgflSX4HuE0BBx1 DEbxoOhr9QgHU6INEt1GBuwxzJW076tD22hkprkl/w90KtbHP2HvjpK5bkNN/MA5 owExvo14qd9YEq0/SKhk =YyMX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----