On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 02:12:46AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-11-10, at 22:23, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> 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. > I forwarded this to [email protected]; subscribe (or watch) there to see if there > are any good suggestions. Thanks. I guess if folks on that list have opinions, they would still to voice them on opsawg given how its opsawg that needs to make a decision. Cheers Toerless > Archived-At: > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/fdt/F1ZTlhXHwtSC81VtUV_MO8R518M> > > Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
