Subject: IPP> Protocol Specification Language -Reply

From: "Scott A. Isaacson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:21:49 -0600

>>> Randy Turner <[email-masked]> 04/13/97 03:04pm >>>

> One problem I had with doing this was that we were talking about
> formalizing data types within the model document. If we stay away
> from endian-ness and bit-lengths of data types, then I think we could
>  just use BNF. In other words, the more formal we get with regards to
>  the model document and data types, the more we need a formal way
>  to express the core IPP protocol in a strict, unambigous manner.

We have tried to formalize the "abstract data types" in the model
document, but ever since we gave up on using a more robust RPC
mechanism for a much simpler solution, I had assumed we would
be doing an 7 bit ASCII encoding where we do not have to worry
about the "bit lengths" or "endian-ness" of data.  An integer in the
IPP model document encodes as a ASCII digit string.  We have no
bit fields.  Keywords are simple strings etc.  We do not need ASN.1
either for a descriptive syntax or BER encoding rules.  The augmented
BNF as used by most other RFCs seems fine to me.  I plan on the
protocol specification having the "formal" rules for data encodings
on the wire.

Scott