Subject: Re: running code vs. formal testing methods

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:46:45 -0700

*> 
  *> history is pretty clear that the way to get success in the protocol
  *> arena is to focus on well-written natural-language specifications
  *> iteratively developed with multiple interoperable inplementations.
  *> 
  *> /mtr
  *> 

Yes.  It also helps if you keep the protocol as simple as possible in the
first place.

Bob Braden

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:46:45 -0700

*> 

Bob Braden

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 14:27:13 +0100

At 17:42 31/07/99 -0600, Marshall Rose wrote: 
>look at the number of standards-track rfcs that have  progressed past the
proposed level. i think you would be hard-pressed to find a  comperable
number of real-world protocols specified and validated using formal
methods.  history is pretty clear that the way to get success in the
protocol arena is to focus on well-written natural-language  specifications
iteratively developed with multiple interoperable  inplementations.  /mtr 

I think it's worth noting that there is SOME track record of formal
specification in RFCs -- the one that first comes to mind is ABNF.  On the
semantic front, RFC 821 uses state diagrams to describe key aspects of
processing semantics.

My point:  this isn't a black-and-white issue.  Some formal techniques have
a track record of demonstrated success (a kind of meta-running-code?).

I think the winning techniques tend to be those that address a well-focused
problem rather than attempt to solve all specification issues.  Maybe this
is the IETF culture at work:  progressing by incremental well-understood
steps rather than trying to digest the problem whole?

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])