On Wed, May 7, 2025, at 09:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Isn't there a third option: formal notation to describe packet formats? > We do that with CBOR/CDDL for example, and I attempted a toy version of > it for TLV type formats at https://github.com/becarpenter/tlv .
I explicitly mentioned formal languages, which seems to be what you are angling toward there. Eliot also reminded me of https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams-13.txt, which attempts to cross the ravine at a similar point (I think). I don't see those as being sufficiently general, but I would still lean toward the text being clear over all else. -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
