How not to design a wire protocol

[Eric S. Raymond]

Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke at gmail.com>:
> I'll post a rebuttal sometime later this week. As for IETF processes,
> though, you're years late. The WG already had a consensus call in 2016
> on what NTS-KE's framing format should look like, and it was
> unanimous. You can still comment during IETF Last Call and try to
> convince the IESG to block the document from advancing, but you're not
> likely to be taken seriously there; the IETF publishes new binary
> protocols all the time.

The strongest reason for them to reconsider is not directly
packed-binary vs. textual, though.  It's the sociability issue.

You yourself advocated that Mode 6 ought to be replaced by an HTTP
service on TCP port 123. I think that's a good idea, if we can do
it. The problem is than NTS-KE *also* wants to have TCP 123.

What that says to me is that whatever service we put on TCP 123 should be
a metaprotocol that can accommodate both KE and a Mode 6 replacement.  
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.