Re: Diagrams (Was RFCs should be distributed in XML)

[Cameron Kerr <cameron at humbledown.org>]

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 at shinkuro.com
>
>
> 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 at ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces at ietf.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:30 AM
> > > To: Yaakov Stein
> > > Cc: ietf at ietf.org; 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 mailing list
> > > Ietf at ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

--
â Cameron Kerr  â â ckerr at cs.otago.ac.nz âï â
â Telecommunications Teaching Fellow & SysAdmin â
â â http://humbledown.org/blog/ â â 021 4117 644 â




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf