On 5/19/25 7:21 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > Nico Williams <[email protected]> writes: > >> ASN.1 is much better, though of course you still need a ton of normative >> natural language. The example RFC regarding ASN.1 as normative would be >> RFC 5912. It's not possible to write all of RFC 5912's contents as >> normative natural language text. The _semantics_ of all the things in >> RFC 5912 require normative natural language text, but the OIDs, the >> types, the object sets, etc. should be kept in ASN.1. > > When trying to improve the quantity and quality of encodable information > in network management models when moving from MIBs (ASN.1-like) to YANG > we ran into this sort of issue. Though YANG allows for greater formal > definition of things, it was very clear that text descriptions would > always be needed to describe additional semantics of objects and the > restrictions on their use, beyond just a description (aka "what is it"). > > TL;DR: it's impossible to formally encode many SHOULDs/MUSTs.
Let's keep the use of the word “impossible” for things that are really impossible, and not just very difficult. It may confuse people who do not understand that “impossible” here is just a figure of speech. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: [email protected] Blog: https://medium.com/@petithug Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
