The Computerate Specifying Paradigm
draft-petithuguenin-computerate-specifying-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Marc Petit-Huguenin | ||
| Last updated | 2019-11-16 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-petithuguenin-computerate-specification | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-petithuguenin-computerate-specifying-02
Network Working Group M. Petit-Huguenin
Internet-Draft Impedance Mismatch LLC
Intended status: Experimental 17 November 2019
Expires: 20 May 2020
The Computerate Specifying Paradigm
draft-petithuguenin-computerate-specifying-02
Abstract
This document specifies a paradigm named Computerate Specifying,
designed to simultaneously document and formally specify
communication protocols. This paradigm can be applied to any
document produced by any Standard Developing Organization (SDO), but
this document targets specifically documents produced by the IETF.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 May 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Retrofitting Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Revision of Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Content of a Computerate Specification . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Syntax Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1. Data Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2. Serializer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.3. Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Formal Syntax Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1. Augmented BNF (ABNF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2. Augmented Packet Header Diagrams (APHD) . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3. Mathematical Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.4. RELAX NG Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.5. ASN.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.6. TLS Description Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3. Proofs for Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1. Isomorphism Between Type and Formal Language . . . . 15
3.3.2. Data Format Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.3. Interoperability with Previous Versions . . . . . . . 18
3.3.4. Postel's Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1. Typed Petri Nets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2. Semantics Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.1. Data Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.2. Serializer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.3. Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3. Formal Semantics Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3.1. Cosmogol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4. Proofs for Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4.1. Isomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4.2. Postel's Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4.3. Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4.4. Liveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4.5. Verified Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Command Line Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.1. Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.1.1. Download the Docker Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.2. Using the "computerate" Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.3. Using the Idris REPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.4. Using Other Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.5. Bugs and Workarounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.6. TODO List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
Appendix B. Computerate Specifications Library . . . . . . . . . 32
B.1. Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
B.2. Catalog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.2.1. RFC5234 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix C. Errata Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction
If, as the unofficial IETF motto states, we believe that "running
code" is an important part of the feedback provided to the
standardization process, then as per the Curry-Howard equivalence
[Curry-Howard] (that states that code and mathematical proofs are the
same), we ought to also believe that "verified proof" is an equally
important part of that feedback. A verified proof is a mathematical
proof of a logical proposition that was mechanically verified by a
computer, as opposed to just peer-reviewed.
The "Experiences with Protocol Description" paper from Pamela Zave
[Zave] gives three conclusions about the usage of formal
specifications for a protocol standard. The first conclusion states
that informal methods (i.e. the absence of verified proofs) are
inadequate for widely used protocols. This document is based on the
assumption that this conclusion is correct, so its validity will not
be discussed further.
The second conclusion states that formal specifications are useful
even if they fall short of the "gold standard" of a complete formal
specification. We will show that a formal specification can be
incrementally added to a standard.
The third conclusion from Zave's paper states that the normative
English language should be paraphrasing the formal specification.
The difficulty here is that to be able to keep the formal
specification and the normative language synchronized at all times,
these two should be kept as physically close as possible to each
other.
To do that we introduce the concept of "Computerate Specifying" (note
that Computerate is a British English word). "Computerate
Specifying" is a play on "Literate Computing", itself a play on
"Structured Computing" (see [Knuth92] page 99). In the same way that
Literate Programming enriches code by interspersing it with its own
documentation, Computerate Specifying enriches a standard
specification by interspersing it with code (or with proofs, as they
are the same thing), making it a computerate specification.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
Note that computerate specifying is not specific to the IETF, just
like literate computing is not restricted to the combination of Tex
and Pascal described in Knuth's paper. What this document describes
is a specific instance of computerate specifying that combines
[AsciiDoc] as formatting language and [Idris] as programming language
with the goal of formally specifying IETF protocols.
2. Overview of Operations
Nowadays specifications at the IETF are written in a format named
xml2rfc v3 [RFC7991] but unfortunately making that format
"Computerable" is not trivial, mostly because there is no simple
solution to mix code and XML together in the same file. Instead, we
chose the AsciiDoc format as the basis for computerate specifications
as it permits the generation of specifications in the xmlrfc v3
format (among other formats) and also because it can be enriched with
code in the same file.
[I-D.ribose-asciirfc] describes a backend for the [Asciidoctor] tool
that converts an AsciiDoc document into an xmlrfc3 document. The
AsciiRFC document states various reasons why AsciiDoc is a superior
format for the purpose of writing standards, so we will not discuss
these further. Note that the same team developed Asciidoctor
backends for other Standards Developing Organizations (SDO)
[Metanorma], making it easy to develop computerate specifications
targeting the standards developed by these SDOs.
The code in a computerate specification uses the programming language
Idris in literate programming [Literate] mode using the Bird-style,
by having each line of code starting with a ">" mark in the first
column.
That same symbol was also used by AsciiDoc as an alternate way of
defining a blockquote [Blockquotes] way which is no longer available
in a computerate specification. Bird-style code will simply not
appear in the rendered document.
The result of Idris code execution can be inserted inside the
document part by putting that code fragment in the document between
the "{`" string and the "`}" string.
A computerate specification is processed by an Asciidoctor
preprocessor that does the following:
1. Loads the whole document as an Idris program, including importing
modules.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
2. For each instance of an inline code fragment, evaluates that
fragment and replace it (including the delimiters) by the result
of that evaluation.
3. Continues with the normal processing of the modified document.
For instance the following computerate specification fragment taken
from the computerate specification of STUNbis
<CODE BEGINS>
> rto : Int
> rto = 500
>
> rc : Nat
> rc = 7
>
> rm : Int
> rm = 16
>
> -- A stream of transmission times
> transmissions : Int -> Int -> Stream Int
> transmissions value rto = value :: transmissions (value + rto)
> (rto * 2)
>
> -- Returns a specific transmission time
> transmission : Int -> Nat -> Int
> transmission timeout i = index i $ transmissions 0 timeout
>
> a1 : String
> a1 = show rto
>
> a2 : String
> a2 = concat (take (rc - 1) (map (\t => show t ++ " ms, ")
> (transmissions 0 rto))) ++ "and " ++ show (transmission rto
> (rc - 1)) ++ " ms"
>
> a3 : String
> a3 = show $ transmission rto (rc - 1) + rto * rm
For example, assuming an RTO of {`a1`}ms, requests would be sent at
times {`a2`}.
If the client has not received a response after {`a3`} ms, the
client will consider the transaction to have timed out.
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 1
is rendered as
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
" For example, assuming an
RTO of 500ms, requests would be sent at times 0 ms, 500 ms, 1500 ms,
3500 ms, 7500 ms, 15500 ms, and 31500 ms. If the client has not
received a response after 39500 ms, the client will consider the
transaction to have timed out."
Figure 2
Appendix A explains how to install the command line tools to process
a computerate specification.
The Idris programming language has been chosen because its type
system supports dependent and linear types, and that type system is
the language in which formal specifications are written.
Following Zave's second conclusion, a computerate specification does
not have to be about just formally specifying a protocol and proving
properties about it. There is a whole spectrum of formalism that can
be introduced in a specification, and we will present it in the
remaining sections by increasing order of complexity. Note that
because the formal language is a programming language, these usages
are not exhaustive, and plenty of other usages can and will be found
after the publication of this document.
2.1. Libraries
A computerate specification does not disappear as soon the standard
it describes is published. Quite the opposite, each specification is
designed to be used as an Idris module that can be imported in
subsequent specifications, reducing over time the amount of code that
needs to be written. At the difference of an RFC that is immutable
after publication, the code in a specification will be improved over
time, especially as new properties are proved or disproved. The
latter will happen when a bug is discovered in a specification and a
proof of negation is added to the specification, paving the way to a
revision of the standard.
This document is itself a computerate specification that contains
data types and functions that can be reused in future specifications,
and as a whole can be considered as the standard library for
computerate specifying.
For convenience, each public computerate specification, including the
one behind this document, will be made available as an individual git
repository. Appendix B explains how to gain access to these
computerate specifications.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
2.2. Retrofitting Specifications
RFCs, Internet-Drafts and standard documents published by other SDOs
did not start their life as computerate specifications, so to be able
to use them as Idris modules they will need to be progressively
retrofitted. This is done by converting the documents into an
AsciiDoc documents and then enriching them with code, in the same way
that would have been done if the standard was developed directly as a
computerate specification.
Converting the whole document in AsciiDoc and enriching it with code,
instead of just maintaining a library of code, seems a waste of
resources. The reason for doing so is to be able to verify that the
rendered text is equivalent to the original standard, which will
validate the examples and formal languages.
Retrofitted specifications will also be made available as individual
git repositories as they are converted.
Because the IETF Trust does not permit modifying an RFC as a whole
(except for translation purposes), a retrofitted RFC uses
transclusion, a mechanism that includes parts of a separate document
at runtime. This way, a retrofitted RFC is distributed as two
separate files, the original RFC in text form, and a computerate
specification that contains only code and transclusions.
Transclusion is a special form of AsciiDoc include that takes a range
of lines as parameters:
include::rfc5234.txt[lines=26..35]
Figure 3
Here the "include" macro will be replaced by the content of lines 26
to 35 (included) of RFC 5234.
The "sub" parameter permits modifying the copied content according to
a regular expression. For instance the following converts references
into the AsciiDoc format:
include::rfc5234.txt[lines=121..131,sub="/\[([^\]])\]/<<\1>>/"]
Figure 4
In the following example, the text is converted into a note:
include::rfc5234.txt[lines=151,sub="/^.*$/NOTE: \0/"]
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
Figure 5
2.3. Revision of Standards
Standards evolve, but because RFCs are immutable, revisions for a
standard are done by publishing new RFCs.
The matching computerate specifications need to reflect that
relationship by extending the data type of syntax and semantics in
the new version, instead of recreating new data types from scratch.
There are two diametrically opposed directions when extending a type:
* The new standard is adding constraints. This is done by indexing
the new type over the old type.
* The new standard is removing constraints. This is done by
defining the new type as a sum type, with one of the alternatives
being the old type.
// This is correct in theory, but in practice creating new //
specifications from old ones as described above is not very //
convenient. Maybe an alternate solution is to define the new //
specifications from scratch, and use an isomorphism proof to //
precisely define the differences between the two. An Idris //
elaboration script may permit duplicating a type and modifying it //
without having to manually copy it.
2.4. Content of a Computerate Specification
Communication protocol specifications are generally split in two
distinct parts, syntax (the data layout of the messages exchanged)
and semantics (the rules that drive the exchange of messages).
Section 3 will discuss in detail the application of computerate
specifying to syntax descriptions, and Section 4 will be about
specifying semantics.
3. Syntax
The syntax of a communication protocol determines how data is laid
out before it is sent over a communication link. Generally the
syntax is described only in the context of the layer that this
particular protocol is operating at, e.g. an application protocol
syntax only describes the data as sent over UDP or TCP, not over
Ethernet or Wi-Fi.
Syntaxes can generally be split into two broad categories, binary and
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
text, and generally a protocol syntax falls completely into one of
these two categories.
Syntax descriptions can be formalized for at least three reasons that
will be presented in the following sections.
3.1. Syntax Examples
Examples in protocol documentation are frequently incorrect, which
should not be that much of an issue but for the fact that most
developers do not read the normative text when an example is
available. See Appendix C for statistics about the frequency of
incorrect examples in RFC errata.
Moving the examples into appendices or adding caution notices may
show limited success in preventing that problem.
So ensuring that examples match the normative text seems like a good
starting point for a computerate specification. This is done by
having the possibility of adding the result of a computation directly
inside the document. If that computation is done from a type that is
(physically and conceptually) close to the normative text, then we
gain some level of assurance that both the normative text and the
derived examples will match. Note that examples can be inserted in
the document as whole blocks of text, or as inline text.
Appendix B.2.1 showcases the conversion of the examples in [RFC5234].
3.1.1. Data Type
The first step is to define an Idris type that completely defines the
layout of the messages exchanged. By "completely define" we mean
that the type checker will prevent creating any invalid value of this
type. That ensures that all values are correct by construction.
E.g. here is the definition of a DNS label per [RFC1034]:
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
<CODE STARTS>
> data PartialLabel' : List Char -> Type where
> Empty : PartialLabel' []
> More : (c : Char) -> (prf1 : isAlphaNum c || c == '-' = True) ->
> PartialLabel' s -> (prf2 : length s < 61 = True) ->
> PartialLabel' (c :: s)
>
> data Label' : List Char -> Type where
> One : (c : Char) -> (prf1 : isAlpha c = True) -> Label' [c]
> Many : (begin : Char) -> (prf1 : isAlpha begin = True) ->
> (middle : PartialLabel' xs) ->
> (end : Char) -> (prf2 : isAlphaNum end = True) ->
> Label' ([begin] ++ xs ++ [end])
>
> data Label : {a : Type} -> a -> Type where
> MkLabel : {xs : String} -> Label' (unpack xs) -> Label xs
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 6
3.1.2. Serializer
The second step is writing a serializer from that type into the wire
representation. For a text format, it is done by implementing the
Show interface:
<CODE STARTS>
> Show (Label xs) where
> show _ = xs
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 7
// Define binary serializer.
3.1.3. Presentation Format
Instead of directly generating character strings, the serializer will
use as target a dependent type that formalizes the AsciiDoc language.
This will permit to know the context in which a character string will
be subsequently generated and to correctly escape special characters
in that string.
Using an intermediary type will also permit to correctly generate
AsciiDoc that can generate an xmlrfc 3 file that supports both text
and graphical versions of a figure. This will be done by having
AsciiDoc blocks converted into <artwork> elements that contains both
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
the 72 column formatted text and an equivalent SVG file, even for
code source (instead of using the <sourcecode> element).
3.2. Formal Syntax Language
Some specifications use a formal language to describe the data
layout. One shared property of these languages is that they cannot
always formalize all the constraints of a specific data layout, so
they have to be enriched with comments. One consequence of this is
that they cannot be used as a replacement for the Idris data type
described in Section 3.1.1, data type that is purposely complete.
The following sections describe how these formal languages have been
or will be themselves formalized with the goal of using them in
computerate specifications.
3.2.1. Augmented BNF (ABNF)
Augmented Backus-Naur Form [RFC5234] (ABNF) is a formal language used
to describe a text based data layout.
The [RFC5234] document has been retrofitted as a computerate
specification to provide an internal Domain Specific Language (DSL)
that permits specifying an ABNF for a specification. The encoding of
an example from Section 2.3 of [RFC5234] looks like this:
<CODE BEGINS>
> rulename : Rule
> rulename = "rulename" `Eq` (Concat (TermDec 97 []) (TermDec 98 [])
> [TermDec 99 []])
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 8
A serializer, also defined in the same specification, permits
converting that description into proper ABNF text that can be
inserted into the document such as in the following fragment:
<CODE BEGINS>
[source,abnf]
----
{`show rulename`}
----
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 9
is rendered as
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
rulename = %d97 %d98 %d99
Figure 10
See Appendix B.2.1 for access to the source of the retrofitted
specification for [RFC5234].
3.2.2. Augmented Packet Header Diagrams (APHD)
Augmented Packet Header Diagram
[I-D.mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams] (APHD) is a formal language
used to describe a binary data layout in a machine-readable format.
The [I-D.mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams] document will be
retrofitted as a computerate specification to provide an internal
Domain Specific Language (DSL) that permits specifying an APHD for a
specification. The partial encoding of an example from section 4.1
looks like this:
<CODE BEGINS>
> ipv4 : Aphd
> ipv4 = MkAphd "IPv4 Header" [
> MkField "Version" (Just "V") (Number 4) Bits "This is a" ++
> " fixed-width field, whose full label is shown in the" ++
> " diagram. The field's width -- 4 bits -- is given in" ++
> " the label of the description list, separated from the" ++
> " field's label by a colon.",
> ...
> MkField "Options" Nothing (Mult (Sub (Name "IHL") (Number 5))
> (Number 32)) Bits "This is a variable-length field, whose" ++
> " length is defined by the value of the field with short" ++
> " label IHL (Internet Header Length). Constraint" ++
> " expressions can be used in place of constant values: the" ++
> " grammar for the expression language is defined in" ++
> " Appendix A.1. Constraints can include a previously" ++
> " defined field's short or full label, where one has been" ++
> " defined. Short variable-length fields are indicated by" ++
> " \"...\" instead of a pipe at the end of the row."
> ...
> ]
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 11
A serializer, also defined in the same specification, permits
converting that description into proper ABNF text that can be
inserted into the document such as in the following fragment:
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
<CODE BEGINS>
....
{`show ipv4`}
....
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 12
is rendered as
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
An IPv4 Header is formatted as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| :
: Payload :
: |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Version (V): 4 bits. This is a fixed-width field, whose full label
is shown in the diagram. The field's width -- 4 bits -- is given
in the label of the description list, separated from the field's
label by a colon.
...
Options: (IHL-5)*32 bits. This is a variable-length field, whose
length is defined by the value of the field with short label IHL
(Internet Header Length). Constraint expressions can be used in
place of constant values: the grammar for the expression language
is defined in Appendix A.1. Constraints can include a previously
defined field's short or full label, where one has been defined.
Short variable-length fields are indicated by "..." instead of a
pipe at the end of the row.
...
Figure 13
Here the serializer generates an instance of the intermediary
AsciiDoc type that describes the header line (which can be
concatenated to previous lines), the block containing the diagram
itself, and then a list of all the field definitions.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
3.2.3. Mathematical Formulas
AsciiDoc supports writing equations using either asciimath or
latexmath. The rendering for RFCs will generate an artwork element
that contains both the text version of the equation and a graphical
version in an SVG file.// Not sure what to do with inline formulas,
as we cannot generate an // artwork element in that case.
An Idris type will be used to described equations at the type level.
An interpreter will be used to calculate and insert examples in the
document.
A serializer will be used to generate the asciimath code that is
inserted inside a stem block.
3.2.4. RELAX NG Format
TBD
3.2.5. ASN.1
TBD
3.2.6. TLS Description Language
TBD
3.3. Proofs for Syntax
The kind of proofs that one would want in a specification are related
to isomorphism, i.e. a guarantee that two or more descriptions of a
data layout contain exactly the same information.
3.3.1. Isomorphism Between Type and Formal Language
We saw above that when a data layout is described with a formal
language, we end up with two descriptions of that data layout, one
using the Idris dependent type (and used to generate examples) and
one using the formal language.
Proving isomorphism requires generating an Idris type from the formal
language instance, which is done using an Idris elaborator script.
In Idris, Elaborator Reflection [Elab] is a metaprogramming facility
that permits writing code generating type declarations and code
(including proofs) automatically.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
For instance the ABNF language is itself defined using ABNF, so after
converting that ABNF into an instance of the Syntax type (which is an
holder for a list of instances of the Rule type), it is possible to
generate a suite of types that represents the same language:
<CODE BEGINS>
> abnf : Syntax
> abnf = MkSyntax [
> "rulelist" `Eq` (Repeat (Just 1) Nothing (Group (Altern
> (TermName "rule") (Group (Concat (Repeat Nothing Nothing
> (TermName "c-wsp")) (TermName "c-nl") [])) []))),
> ...
> ]
>
> %runElab (generateType "Abnf" abnf)
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 14
The result of the elaboration can then be used to construct a value
of type Iso, which requires four total functions, two for the
conversion between types, and another two to prove that sequencing
the conversions results in the same original value.
The following example generates an Idris type "SessionDescription"
from the SDP ABNF. It then proves that this type and the Sdp type
contain exactly the same information (the proofs themselves have been
removed, leaving only the propositions):
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
<CODE BEGINS>
> import Data.Control.Isomorphism
>
> sdp : Syntax
> sdp = MkSyntax [
> "session-description" `Eq` (Concat (TermName "version-field")
> (TermName "origin-field") [
> TermName "session-name-field",
> Optional (TermName "information-field"),
> Optional (TermName "uri-field"),
> Repeat Nothing Nothing (TermName "email-field"),
> Repeat Nothing Nothing (TermName "phone-field"),
> Optional (TermName "connection-field"),
> Repeat Nothing Nothing (TermName "bandwidth-field"),
> Repeat (Just 1) Nothing (TermName "time-description"),
> Optional (TermName "key-field"),
> Repeat Nothing Nothing (TermName "attribute-field"),
> Repeat Nothing Nothing (TermName "media-description")
> ]),
> ...
> ]
>
> %runElab (generateType "Sdp" sdp)
>
> same : Iso Sdp SessionDescription
> same = MkIso to from toFrom fromTo
> where
> to : Sdp -> SessionDescription
>
> from : SessionDescription -> Abnf
>
> toFrom : (x : SessionDescription ) -> to (from x) = x
>
> fromTo : (x : Sdp) -> from (to x) = x
>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 15
As stated in Section 3.2, the Idris type and the type generated from
the formal language are not always isomorphic, because some
constraints cannot be expressed in that formal language. In that
case isomorphism can be used to precisely define what is missing
information in the formal language type. To do so, the generated
type is augmented with a delta type, like so:
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
<CODE BEGINS>
> data DeltaSessionDescription : Type where
> ...
>
> same : Iso Sdp (SessionDescription, DeltaSessionDescription)
> ...
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 16
Then the DeltaSessionDescription type can be modified to include the
missing information until the same function type checks. After this
we have a guarantee that we know all about the constraints that
cannot be encoded in that formal language, and can check manually
that each of them is described as comment.
Idris elaborator scripts will be developped for each formal
languages.
3.3.2. Data Format Conversion
For specifications that describe a conversion between different data
layouts, having a proof that guarantees that no information is lost
in the process can be beneficial. For instance, we observe that
syntax encoding tends to be replaced each ten years or so by
something "better". Here again isomorphism can tell us exactly what
kind of information we lost and gained during that replacement.
Here, for example, the definition of a function that would verify an
isomorphism between an XML format and a JSON format:
<CODE BEGINS>
> isXmlAndJsonSame: Iso (XML, DeltaXML) (JSON, DeltaJson)
> ...
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 17
Here DeltaXML expresses what is gained by switching from XML to JSON,
and DeltaJson expresses what is lost.
3.3.3. Interoperability with Previous Versions
The syntax of the data layout may be modified as part of the
evolution of a standard. In most case a version number prevents old
format to be used with the new format, but in cases where that it is
not possible, the new specification can ensure that both formats can
co-exist by using the same techniques as above.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
Conversely these techniques can be used during the design phase of a
new version of a format, to check if a new version number is
warranted.
3.3.4. Postel's Law
| Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
| others.
|
| -- Jon Postel
One of the downsides of formal specifications is that there is no
wiggle room possible when implementing it. An implementation either
conforms to the specification or does not.
One analogy would be specifying a pair of gears. If one decides to
have both of them made with tolerances that are too small, then it is
very likely that they will not be able to move when put together. A
bit of slack is needed to get the gear smoothly working together but
more importantly the cost of making these gears is directly
proportional to their tolerance. There is an inflexion point where
the cost of an high precision gear outweighs its purpose.
We have a similar issue when implementing a formal specification,
where having an absolutely conformant implementation may cost more
money than it is worth spending. On the other hand a specification
exists for the purpose of interoperability, so we need some
guidelines on what to ignore in a formal specification to make it
cost effective.
Postel's law proposes an informal way of defining that wiggle room by
actually having two different specifications, one that defines a data
layout for the purpose of sending it, and another one that defines a
data layout for the purpose of receiving that data layout.
Existing specifications express that dichotomy in the form of the
usage of SHOULD/SHOULD NOT/RECOMMENDED/NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC2119]
keywords. For example the SDP spec says that "[t]he sequence CRLF
(0x0d0a) is used to end a line, although parsers SHOULD be tolerant
and also accept lines terminated with a single newline character."
This directly infers two specifications, one used to define an SDP
when sending it, that enforces using only CRLF, and a second
specification, used to define an SDP when receiving it (or parsing
it), that accepts both CRLF and LF.
Note that the converse is not necessarily true, i.e. not all usages
of these keywords are related to Postel's Law.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
To ensure that the differences between the sending specification and
the receiving specification do not create interoperability problems,
we can use a variant of isomorphism, as shown in the following
example (data constructors and code elided):
<CODE BEGINS>
> data Sending : Type where
>
> data Receiving : Type where
>
> to : Sending -> List Receiving
>
> from : Receiving -> Sending
>
> toFrom : (y : Receiving) -> Elem y (to (from y))
>
> fromTo : (y : Sending) -> True = all (== y) [from x | x <- to y]
>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 18
Here we define two data types, one that describes the data layout
that is permitted to be sent (Sending) and one that describes the
data layout that is permitted to be received (Receiving). For each
data layout that is possible to send, there is one or more matching
receiving data layouts. This is expressed by the function "to" that
takes as input one Sending value and returns a list of Receiving
values.
Conversely, the "from" function maps a Receiving data layout onto a
Sending data layout. Note the asymmetry there, which prevents to use
a standard proof of isomorphism.
Then the "toFrom" and "fromTo" proofs verify that there is no
interoperability issue by guaranteeing that each Receiving value maps
to one and only one Sending instance and that this mapping is
isomorphic.
All of this will provide a clear guidance of when and where to use a
SHOULD keyword or its variants, without loss of interoperability.
As an trivial example, the following proves that accepting LF
characters in addition to CRLF characters as end of line markers does
not break interoperability:
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
<CODE BEGINS>
> data Sending : Type where
> S_CRLF : Sending
>
> Eq Sending where
> (==) S_CRLF S_CRLF = True
>
> data Receiving : Type where
> R_CRLF : Receiving
> R_LF : Receiving
>
> to : Sending -> List Receiving
> to S_CRLF = [R_CRLF, R_LF]
>
> from : Receiving -> Sending
> from R_CRLF = S_CRLF
> from R_LF = S_CRLF
>
> toFrom : (y : Receiving) -> Elem y (to (from y))
> toFrom R_CRLF = Here
> toFrom R_LF = There Here
>
> fromTo : (y : Sending) -> True = all (== y) [from x | x <- to y]
> fromTo S_CRLF = Refl
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 19
4. Semantics
The semantics of a communication protocol determine what messages are
exchanged over a communication link and the relationship between
them. The semantics are generally described only in the context of
the layer that this particular protocol is operating at.
4.1. Typed Petri Nets
The semantics of a specification require to define an Idris type that
strictly enforces these semantics. This can be done in an ad hoc way
[Type-Driven], particularly by using linear types that express
resources' consumption.
But a better solution is to design these graphically, particularly by
using Petri Nets. This specification defines a DSL that permits
describing a Typed Petri Net (TPN) which is heavily influenced by
Coloured Petri Nets [CPN] (CPN). A CPN adds some restriction on the
types that can be used in a Petri Net because of limitations in the
underlying programming language, SML. The underlying programming
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
used in TPN, Idris, does not have these limitations, so any well-
formed Idris type (including polymorphic, linear and dependent types)
can be directly used in TPN.// A graphical editor for TPN is planned
as part of the integration // tooling. The graphical tool will use
the document directly as // storage.
Here's an example of TPN (from figure 2.10 in [CPN]):
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
<CODE BEGINS>
> NO : Type
> NO = Int
>
> DATA : Type
> DATA = String
>
> NOxDATA : Type
> NOxDATA = (NO, DATA)
>
> PTS : Place
> PTS = MkPlace "Packets To Send" NOxDATA (\() => [(1, "COL"),
> (2, "OUR"), (3, "ED "), (4, "PET"), (5, "RI "), (6, "NET")])
>
> NS : Place
> NS = MkPlace "NextSend" NO (\() => [1])
>
> A : Place
> A = MkPlace "A" NOxDATA (\() => [])
>
> input1 : Input
> input1 = MkInput PTS (NO, DATA) pure
>
> input2 : Input
> input2 = MkInput NS NO pure
>
> output1 : Output
> output1 = MkOutput PTS (NO, DATA) pure
>
> output2 : Output
> output2 = MkOutput NS NO pure
>
> output3 : Output
> output3 = MkOutput A (NO, DATA) pure
>
> sendPacket : Transition
> sendPacket = MkTransition [input1, input2] [output1, output2,
> output3] (\((n, d), n') => if n == n'
> then pure ((n, d), n, (n, d))
> else empty)
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 20
// The DSL is being currently designed, so the example shows the //
generated value.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
From there it is easy to generate (using the non-deterministic monad
in Idris) an interpreter for debugging and simulation purposes:
<CODE BEGINS>
> interpret : MS NOxDATA -> MS NO -> MS NOxDATA ->
> ND (MS NOxDATA, MS NO, MS NOxDATA)
> interpret pts ns a = do
> (pts1, pts2) <- sel pts
> (ns1, ns2) <- sel ns
> i1 <- input' input1 pts1
> i2 <- input' input2 ns1
> (pts3, ns3, a3) <- transition' sendPacket (i1, i2)
> let o1 = output' output1 pts3
> let o2 = output' output2 ns3
> let o3 = output' output3 a3
> pure (o1 ++ pts2, o2 ++ ns2, o3 ++ a)
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 21
// Replace by the generic variant of the interpreter.
A Petri Net has the advantage that the same graph can be reused to
derive other Petri Nets, e.g., Timed Petri Nets (that can be used to
collect performance metrics) or Stochastic Petri Nets.// The
traditional way of verifying a Petri Net is by using model //
checking. There is nothing in the design that prevents doing //
that, but because that takes quite some time to run and so cannot //
be part of the document processing, how do we store in the //
document a proof that the model checking was successful?
4.2. Semantics Examples
Semantics examples can be wrong, so it is useful to be sure that they
match the specification.
4.2.1. Data Type
As explained above, semantics can be described in an ad hoc manner,
or using the TPN DSL.
4.2.2. Serializer
At the difference of syntax, where there are more or less as many
ways to display them than there are syntaxes, semantics examples
generally use sequence diagrams, eventually augmented with the
content of the packets exchanged (and so using the techniques
described in Section 3.1).
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
Similarly to what is done in Section 3.2.2, an Asciidoctor block
processor similar to the "msc" type of diagram used by the
asciidoctor-diagram extension will be designed.// We unfortunately
cannot reuse the asciidoctor-diagram extension // because it cannot
generate both text and SVG versions of a // sequence diagram.
The serializer for an example derived from a TPN generates the
content of the msc AsciiDoc block, by selecting one particular path
and its associated bindings through the Petri Net.// We probably want
to use AsciiDoc callouts for these, although that // would require a
modification in AsciiRfc. In fact callout would // be a far better
technique for other diagrams, like AAD, as it will // let the
renderer take care of the best way to place elements // depending on
the output format.
4.2.3. Presentation Format
TBD.
4.3. Formal Semantics Language
Some specifications use a formal language to describe the state
machines. One shared property of these languages is that they cannot
always formalize all the constraints of specific semantics, so they
have to be enriched with comments. One consequence of this is that
they cannot be used as a replacement for the Idris data type
described in Section 4.1, a data type that is purposely complete.
4.3.1. Cosmogol
Cosmogol [I-D.bortzmeyer-language-state-machines] is a formal
language designed to define states machines. The Internet-Draft will
be retrofitted as a computerate specification to provide an internal
Domain Specific Language (DSL) that permits specifying an instance of
that language. A serializer and elaborator script will also be
defined.
Finally, an Asciidoctor block processor would be used to convert the
language into both a text and a graphical view of the state
machine.// Add examples there.
4.4. Proofs for Semantics
Like for syntax formal languages, an elaborator script permits
generating a type from a TPN instance. That type can then be used to
write proofs of the properties that we expect from the semantics.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
4.4.1. Isomorphism
An isomorphism proof can be used between two types derived from the
semantics of a specification, for example to prove that no
information is lost in the converting between the underlying
processes, or when upgrading a process.
An example of that would be to prove (or more likely disprove) that
the SIP state machines are isomorphic to the WebRTC state machines.
4.4.2. Postel's Law
Like for the syntax, semantics can introduce wiggle room between the
state machines on the sending side and the state machines on the
receiving side. A similar isomorphism proof can be used to ensure
that this is done without loss of interoperability.
4.4.3. Termination
The TPN type can be used to verify that the protocol actually
terminates, or that it always returns to its initial state. This is
equivalent to proving that a program terminates.
4.4.4. Liveness
The TPN type can be used to verify that the protocol is productive,
i.e. that it does not loop without making progress.
4.4.5. Verified Code
A TPN that covers a whole protocol (i.e. client, network, and server)
is useful to prove the properties listed in the previous sections.
But the TPN is also designed in a way that each of these parts can be
defined separately from the others (making it a Hierarchical TPN).
This permits using the type generated from these (through an
elaborator script) as a type for real code, and thus verifying that
this code conforms to both the syntax and the semantics
specifications.
5. Informative References
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[I-D.bortzmeyer-language-state-machines]
Bortzmeyer, S., "Cosmogol: a language to describe finite
state machines", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
bortzmeyer-language-state-machines-01, 11 November 2006,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bortzmeyer-language-
state-machines-01>.
[Curry-Howard]
"Curry-Howard correspondence",
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-
Howard_correspondence>.
[I-D.mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams]
McQuistin, S., Band, V., and C. Perkins, "Describing
Protocol Data Units with Augmented Packet Header
Diagrams", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams-01, 3 November 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcquistin-augmented-
ascii-diagrams-01>.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[I-D.ribose-asciirfc]
Tse, R., Nicholas, N., and P. Brasolin, "AsciiRFC:
Authoring Internet-Drafts And RFCs Using AsciiDoc", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ribose-asciirfc-08, 17
April 2018,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ribose-asciirfc-08>.
[Zave] Zave, P., "Experiences with Protocol Description",
Rigorous Protocol Engineering (WRiPE'11), October 2011,
<http://www.pamelazave.com/wripe.pdf>.
[Knuth92] Knuth, D., "Literate Programming", Center for the Study of
Language and Information, 1992.
[Elab] Christiansen, D. and E.C. Brady, "Elaborator reflection:
extending Idris in Idris", In Proceedings of the 21st ACM
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional
Programming. ACM Press-Association for Computing
Machinery, 2016.
[AsciiDoc] "AsciiDoc", <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc>.
[Asciidoctor]
"Asciidoctor",
<https://asciidoctor.org/docs/user-manual/>.
[Metanorma]
"Metanorma", <https://www.metanorma.com/>.
[Idris] "Idris: A Language with Dependent Types",
<https://www.idris-lang.org/>.
[Literate] "Literate programming", <http://docs.idris-
lang.org/en/latest/tutorial/miscellany.html#literate-
programming>.
[Blockquotes]
"Markdown-style blockquotes",
<https://asciidoctor.org/docs/user-manual/#markdown-style-
blockquotes>.
[CPN] Jensen, K. and L. M. Kristensen, "Coloured Petri Nets:
Modelling and Validation of Concurrent Systems", Springer,
2009.
[Type-Driven]
Brady, E., "Type-Driven Development with Idris", Manning,
2017.
Appendix A. Command Line Tools
A.1. Installation
The computerate command line tools are run inside a Docker image, so
the first step is to install the Docker software or verify that it is
up to date (https://docs.docker.com/install/).
Note that for the usage described in this document there is no need
for Docker EE or for having a Docker account.
The following instructions assume a Unix based OS, i.e. Linux or
MacOS. Lines separated by a "\" character are meant to be executed
as one single line, with the "\" character removed.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
A.1.1. Download the Docker Image
To install the computerate tools, the fastest way is to download and
install the Docker image using a temporary image containing the dat
tool:
docker pull veggiemonk/dat-docker
mkdir computerate
cd computerate
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v \
$(pwd):/tools veggiemonk/dat-docker dat clone \
dat://6a33cb289d5818e3709f62e95df41be537edba5f4dc26593e2cb870c7982345b \
tools
Figure 22
After this, the image can be loaded in Docker. The newly installed
Docker image also contains the dat command, so there is no need to
keep the veggiemonk/dat-docker image after this:
docker load -i tools.tar.xz
docker image rm --force veggiemonk/dat-docker
Figure 23
A new version of the tools is released at the same time a new version
of this document is released. After this, running the following
command in the computerate directory will pull any new version of the
tool tar file:
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) \
-v $(pwd):/computerate computerate/tools dat pull --exit
Figure 24
The docker image can then be loaded as above.
A.2. Using the "computerate" Command
The Docker image main command is "computerate", which takes the same
parameters as the "metanorma" command from the Metanorma tooling:
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools computerate -t ietf -x txt <file>
Figure 25
The differences with the "metanorma" command are:
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
* The "computerate" command can process Literate Idris files (files
with a "lidr" extension, aka lidr files), in addition to AsciiDoc
files (files with an "adoc" extension, aka adoc files). When a
lidr file is processed, all embedded code fragments (text between
prefix "{`" and suffix "`}") are evaluated in the context of the
Idris code contained in this file. Each code fragment (including
the prefix and suffix) are then substituted by the result of that
evaluation.
* The "computerate" command can process included lidr files in the
same way. The embedded code fragments in the imported file are
processed in the context of the included lidr file, not in the
context of the including file. Idris modules (either from an idr
or lidr file) can be imported the usual way.
* The literate code (which is all the text that is starting by a ">"
symbol in column 1) in a lidr file will not be part of the
rendered document.
* The computerate command can process transclusions, as explained in
Section 2.2.
* Lookup of external references is disabled. Use either raw XML
references or an external directory.
* Instead of generating a file based on the name of the input file,
the "computerate" command generates a file based on the ":name:"
attribute in the header of the document.
The "computerate" command can also be used to generate an xmlrfc v3
file, ready for submission to the IETF:
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools computerate -t ietf -x xmlrfc3 <file>
Figure 26
A.3. Using the Idris REPL
idr and lidr files can be loaded directly in the Idris REPL for
debugging:
docker run --rm -it -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools idris <lidr-file>
Figure 27
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
It is possible to directly modify the source code in the REPL by
entering the ":e" command, which will load the file in an instance of
VIM preconfigured to interact with the REPL.
Alternatively the Idris REPL can be started as a server:
docker run --rm -it -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -p 127.0.0.1:4294:4294 \
-v $(pwd):/computerate computerate/tools idris
Figure 28
Then if a source file is loaded in a separate console with the VIM
instance inside the Docker image, it can interact with the REPL
server:
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) --net=host \
-v $(pwd):/computerate computerate/tools vim <file>
Figure 29
Note that both commands must be run from the same directory.
A.4. Using Other Commands
For convenience, the docker image provides the latest version of the
xml2rfc, idnits, aspell, and languagetool tools.
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools xml2rfc
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools idnits --help
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools aspell
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools languagetool
Figure 30
The Docker image also contains a extended version of git that will be
used to retrieve the computerate specifications in Appendix B.
A.5. Bugs and Workarounds
* Errors in embedded code do not stop the process but replace the
text by the error message, which can be easily overlooked.
* backticks are not escaped in code fragments.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
* The current version of Docker in Ubuntu fails, but this can be
fixed with the following commands:
sudo apt-get install containerd.io=1.2.6-3
sudo systemctl restart docker.service
Figure 31
* The Asciidoctor processor does not correctly format the output in
all cases (e.g. "++"). The escaping can be done in Idris until
this is fixed.
* Sometimes the Idris processing fails with an error "Module needs
reloading". Deleting all the files with the ibc extension will
solve that problem.
* Trying to fetch nonexistent new commits on a git repository will
block for 12 seconds.
* xml2rfc does not support PDF output.
A.6. TODO List
* Embedded blocks.
* Test on Windows.
* Using recursive modules with Idris.
Appendix B. Computerate Specifications Library
B.1. Installation
The git repositories that compose the Computerate Specification
Library are distributed over a peer-to-peer protocol based on dat.
This requires an extension to git, extension that is already
installed in the Docker image described in Appendix A. The following
command can be used to retrieve a computerate specification:
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools git clone --recursive dat://<public-key> <name>
Figure 32
Here <public-key> is the dat public key for a specific computerate
specification and <name> is the recommended name. Do not use the dat
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
URIs given in Appendix A, as only the dat public keys listed in
Appendix B.2 can be used with a git clone.
Updating the repository also requires using the Docker image:
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools git pull
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools git submodule update
Figure 33
All the git commands that do not require access to the remote can be
run natively or from the Docker image.
Note that for the computerate specification library the "computerate"
command must be run from the directory that is one level above the
git repository. The name of the root document is always "Main.lidr"
or "Main.adoc":
docker run --rm -u $(id -u):$(id -g) -v $(pwd):/computerate \
computerate/tools computerate -t ietf -x txt \
<git-repository>/Main.lidr
Figure 34
B.2. Catalog
For the time being this document will serve as a catalog of available
computerate specifications.
B.2.1. RFC5234
Name: RFC5234
Public key:
994e52b29a7bf4f7590b0f0369a7d55d29fb22befd065e462b2185a8207e21f1
Figure 35
Appendix C. Errata Statistics
In an effort to quantify the potential benefits of using formal
methods at the IETF, an effort to relabel the Errata database is
under way.
The relabeling uses the following labels:
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Label | Description |
+==========+==============================================+
| AAD | Error in an ASCII bit diagram |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| ABNF | Error in an ABNF |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Absent | The errata was probably removed |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| ASN.1 | Error in ASN.1 |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| C | Error in C code |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Diagram | Error in a generic diagram |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Example | An example does not match the normative text |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Formula | Error preventable by using Idris code |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Ladder | Error in a ladder diagram |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Rejected | The erratum was rejected |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| Text | Error in the text itself, no remedy |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
| TLS | Error in the TLS language |
+----------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 1
At the time of publication the first 700 errata, which represents
11.88% of the total, have been relabeled. On these, 34 were rejected
and 27 were deleted, leaving 639 valid errata.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
+---------+-------+------------+
| Label | Count | Percentage |
+=========+=======+============+
| Text | 396 | 61.97% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| Formula | 66 | 10.32% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| Example | 64 | 10.0% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| ABNF | 38 | 5.94% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| AAD | 32 | 5.00% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| ASN.1 | 27 | 4.22% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| C | 9 | 1.40% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| Diagram | 4 | 0.62% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| TLS | 2 | 0.31% |
+---------+-------+------------+
| Ladder | 1 | 0.15% |
+---------+-------+------------+
Table 2
Note that as the relabeling is done in in order of erratum number, at
this point it covers mostly older RFCs. A change in tooling (e.g.
ABNF verifiers) means that these numbers may drastically change as
more errata are relabeled. But at this point it seems that 38.02% of
errata could have been prevented with a more pervasive use of formal
methods.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jim Kleck, Stephane Bryant, Eric Petit-Huguenin, Nicolas
Gironi, Stephen McQuistin, and Greg Skinner for the comments,
suggestions, questions, and testing that helped improve this
document.
Changelog
* draft-petithuguenin-computerate-specifying-02
- Document
o Switch to rfcxml3.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
o Status is now experimental.
o Many nits.
o Fix incorrect errata stats.
o Move acknowledgment section at the end.
o Rewrite the APHD section (formerly known as AAD) to match
draft-mcquistin-augmented-diagrams-01.
o Fix non-ascii characters in the references.
o Intermediate AsciiDoc representation for serializers.
- Tooling
o xmlrfc3 is now the default extension.
o "docName" and "category" attributes are now generated, and
the "prepTime" is removed.
o Update xml2rfc to 2.35.0.
o Remove LanguageTool.
o Update Metanorma to version 0.3.17.
o Update Asciidoctor to 2.0.10.
o Update list of Working Groups.
- Library
o No update.
* draft-petithuguenin-computerate-specifying-01
- Document
o New changelog appendix.
o Fix incorrect reference, formatting in Idris code.
o Add option to remove container in all "docker run" command.
o Add explanations to use the Idris REPL and VIM inside the
Docker image.
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Computerate Specifying November 2019
o Add placeholders for ASN.1 and RELAX NG languages.
o New Errata appendix.
o Nits.
o Improve Syntax Examples section.
- Tooling
o Update Metanorma to version 0.3.16
o Update MetaNorma-cli to version 1.2.7.1
o Switch to patched version of Idris 1.3.2 that supports
remote REPL in Docker.
o Add VIM and idris-vim extension.
o Remove some debug statements.
- Library
o No update
Author's Address
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Impedance Mismatch LLC
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Petit-Huguenin Expires 20 May 2020 [Page 37]