Re: running code vs. formal testing methods

To: Reinhard Scholl <Reinhard.Scholl at etsi.fr>, "'ietf at ietf.org'" <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: running code vs. formal testing methods
From: "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf at MCI.NET>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:57:11 -0400
In-reply-to: <7B7F473688DBD211B56C00805F85906C2C66BE@EMAIL2>

SDL's and other formal methods have not yielded results
commensurate with the effort to use them. They are
overblown, verbose, hard to use, hard to understand.
What they might gain in precision they lose in 
comprehensibility.

Plain English specs and multiple implementations
in <your language of choice> followed by interoperability
bakeoffs continue to be a powerful means of achieving
interworking implementations and confidence in the
specifications.

Vint Cerf


> 
=================================================================
"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" 
Join the Internet Society and help to make it so.
See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000
http://www.isoc.org/inet2000

Follow-Ups:
- RE: running code vs. formal testing methods
  - From: Bob Wise

References:
- running code vs. formal testing methods
  - From: Reinhard Scholl

Prev by Date: running code vs. formal testing methods
Next by Date: RE: running code vs. formal testing methods
Previous by thread: running code vs. formal testing methods
Next by thread: RE: running code vs. formal testing methods
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: running code vs. formal testing methods

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.