Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin,
I agree that we need to be able to make complex protocol's readable in IETF,
That is why I am doing an update ID for the RFC2119, I know many don't
think it is a right thing to do, but I think maybe in future while
making new versions of the update draft I will get to better
discussions,
AB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:21:41 -0800
I think there are cases of standards of extreme complexity, such as SIP,
where such profiles may be useful, because otherwise interoperability
cannot be achieved.
I would not call SIP a standard of extreme complexity, but anyway there is
more and more protocols on a similar complexity - just two protocols that I am
working with currently - RSTP 2.0 and RELOAD - are of similar complexity.
But perhaps the lesson for the IETF here is slightly different - don't
design standards which allow that degree of complexity in the first place.
There is no simple solution to a complex problem, so as the problems we try to
solve increase in complexity, so are our solutions to them. But perhaps you
are right in a way. Perhaps the problem is simply that RFC 2119, and the
issues I and other see with the approach in using as little of the keywords as
possible, was designed for a time when problems - and solutions - were
simpler. Perhaps RFC 2119 imposes an upper limit on the complexity that a
protocol developed with it can reach, and we are just hitting this threshold
more and more often.
I am not saying that it is a bad thing - I certainly like simple protocols,
but perhaps the IETF is simply the wrong place for developing complex protocols.
- --
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc at petit-huguenin.org