On 2020-11-10, at 22:23, Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote: > > Why is the document not using a formal language to define the > syntax/semantic of its formatting ? Would CBOR/CDDL not be a > good candidate ? Any other ?
Well, changing the format to be more regular (e.g., CBOR) is not what we want. Getting a better description might indeed be useful, but in the end that would have to describe all the warts of the current format, which is probably more than CDDL can do today (I haven’t checked, though). I forwarded this to f...@ietf.org; subscribe (or watch) there to see if there are any good suggestions. Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/fdt/F1ZTlhXHwtSC81VtUV_MO8R518M> Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
