On 17.05.2025 16:32, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
On 5/17/25 1:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 16.05.2025 17:22, Salz, Rich wrote:
An additional reason why I think that English sentences are better
than ABNF or any other formalism as the normative part of a standard
track RFC: most people understand w
On 2025-05-19, at 20:20, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
> On 5/19/25 2:06 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>> we need to make for ... an “RFC filesystem”.
>
> I've seen a couple of mentions of this in the thread.
> Are you hypothesizing, or is there such a thing.
My prototype is at
https://tzi.de/~ca
On 5/19/25 2:06 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
we need to make for ... an “RFC filesystem”.
I've seen a couple of mentions of this in the thread.
Are you hypothesizing, or is there such a thing.
I have contemplated something similar in the past, but never discussed
it. My initial thinking was a
On 2025-05-19, at 20:02, Paul Kyzivat
wrote:
>
> But AFAIK we don't have a way to submit multiple pieces of source data for
> portions of a document, that are then automatically processed by different
> tools and assembled to create the authoritative form.
… and that is indeed a significant s
On 5/19/25 11:23 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I think there are a number of questions being grouped together
here. The first is around how much we should be specifying protocols
in formal languages, whether ABNF or bit-wise languages like in TLS or
QUIC. The second is what tooling we should be provi
On 2025-05-19, at 18:18, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> Mind you, I'm skeptical of expressing any normative requirements with
> ABNF. Or even in an LALR(1), LALR(k), LR, GLR, or other parser grammars
> unless code, pseudocode, or normative natural language text is
> associated with relevant "actions".
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 07:21:21AM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Nico Williams writes:
> > ASN.1 is much better, though of course you still need a ton of normative
> > natural language. The example RFC regarding ASN.1 as normative would be
> > RFC 5912. It's not possible to write all of RFC 5912'
Hiya!
On 19.05.2025 17:23, Eric Rescorla wrote:
This is equivalent to a bit diagram and in many pre-QUIC
specifications, that's what it would have been. The IETF could, if it
wanted, require that specifications contain this kind of formal
description of PDUs. This does not preclude the existenc
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 7:51 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 19.05.2025 16:44, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>
> No one formal language is going to meet all needs.
>
> I think that's a good take away from this discussion. What's the take
> away for this group? In my view, it is better that tooling ha
On 5/19/25 8:03 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 7:57 AM Marc Petit-Huguenin
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/25 7:21 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>> Nico Williams writes:
>>>
ASN.1 is much better, though of course you still need a ton of normative
natural language. The example RFC
It's a tooling issue. Not sure what the solution is yet, but there are plenty
of examples of works expressed differently being compatible at the ABI layer,
so maybe we need to look at ways to compile down to ABI and express in RFC
formats. I'll review ABNF at some point because at first glance B
I think we're into the territory of guildlore and licensing here, which is something Sunsite as a class of curated public domain works did better than the free for all we see these days, however as an Officious Bystander I am concerned about elitism given the well worn tracks made by professional C
On 5/19/25 7:21 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Nico Williams writes:
>
>> ASN.1 is much better, though of course you still need a ton of normative
>> natural language. The example RFC regarding ASN.1 as normative would be
>> RFC 5912. It's not possible to write all of RFC 5912's contents as
>> norma
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 7:57 AM Marc Petit-Huguenin
wrote:
> On 5/19/25 7:21 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > Nico Williams writes:
> >
> >> ASN.1 is much better, though of course you still need a ton of normative
> >> natural language. The example RFC regarding ASN.1 as normative would be
> >> RFC
Hiya,
On 19.05.2025 16:44, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
No one formal language is going to meet all needs.
I think that's a good take away from this discussion. What's the take
away for this group? In my view, it is better that tooling handle what
it can handle at the highest layer it can process
On 5/18/25 11:21 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
ABNF is generally good for the things it's been used for, but it's not
really a very good formal language.
ASN.1 is much better, though of course you still need a ton of normative
natural language.
Its been a very long time since I wrote, or even rea
Nico Williams writes:
> ASN.1 is much better, though of course you still need a ton of normative
> natural language. The example RFC regarding ASN.1 as normative would be
> RFC 5912. It's not possible to write all of RFC 5912's contents as
> normative natural language text. The _semantics_ of
17 matches
Mail list logo
