On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 03:22:18AM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 02:12:46AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > 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. > > Why not ? Its a new format, its meant to be easily extensible, verifyable, > etc. pp .. > > > 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). > > It seemed this doc was an ask for a new format. I agree that we > may not bother about better formal description of an old format. >
It might be that they want the format they have written down and not CBOR or any other format out there. My experience with telling people they should use a "better" format, which is not the format they like to use in the first place, is that this leads to specs that are at the end not implemented and used. It is surely OK to point developers to possible alternatives so that they can take an informed decision but if developers then conclude that they prefer to use an ad-hoc format, it may be wise to accept this decision. The value of having an interoperable format is often higher than the value of making this format a well-known format (and taking the risk that at the end there is no interoperable format). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
