-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 01/08/2013 05:41 AM, Dick Franks wrote:
On 5 January 2013 19:14, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
wrote:
[snip]
Another way to look at it would be to run the following experiment:
1. Someone design a new protocol, something simple but not obvious, and
write in a formal language and keep it secret.
Which raises the obvious question: Why do we not write protocol specs in a
formal specification language instead of struggling with the ambiguities of
natural language?
Theorem provers and automated verification tools could then be brought to
bear on both specifiations and implementations.
IMO, the main problem with using a formal specification language is that it
would made RFCs a little bit too close to mathematics for some people, as math
is not patentable. So do not expect any change in this direction.
- --
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc(_at_)petit-huguenin(_dot_)org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=PDy4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----