{"id":812,"date":"2026-06-06T13:03:27","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T21:03:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/salemdata.net\/johnpress\/?p=812"},"modified":"2026-06-06T13:03:27","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T21:03:27","slug":"creating-a-specification-after-the-fact-using-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/salemdata.net\/johnpress\/?p=812","title":{"rendered":"Creating A Specification After the Fact Using AI"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/h3>\n

Protocol specifications are normally written before independent implementations are attempted. The specification is the common contract: it tells each implementer what must be sent, what must be accepted, what may be rejected, and what behavior is expected. Reticulum and LXMF present a different problem: much of the \u201cprotocol\u201d must be inferred from a working Python implementation. That is like asking a contractor to derive the building code from a finished house down the street.<\/p>\n

A House Is Not a Building Code<\/h3>\n

Imagine you want to build a house in the year 1908.\u00a0 If you build a house, you probably should use an architect who then designs your house according to the applicable building codes where your house will be located.\u00a0 The house is designed to meet the building codes.<\/p>\n

\"Shelf
Good Old-Fashioned Building Codes<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Your architect and contractor normally have building codes to reference to make sure your house meets standards.\u00a0 But suppose they did not, they only have an “reference implementation”, e.g. the house down the street that you like and want to duplicate?\u00a0 They’re told they have to use the house down the street as an implementation of what the unspecified codes are.<\/p>\n

\"Drawing
A Lovely Home<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Cartoon
What Are The Specifications?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So this house & building codes metaphor is where a software developer might feel when attempting to create an implementation of a “protocol” when all he has to work with is an existing code base instead of specifications.\u00a0 It’s not impossible, but the developer certainly will have his work cut out for him.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

My Current Problem: Understanding Reticulum’s LXMF Implementation Protocol<\/h3>\n

I’ve been focused with the Reticulum “protocol” and implementing it in C++ using Chad Attermann’s microReticulum.\u00a0 microReticulum is Reticulum written in C++ instead of using the Python scripting language where Reticulum was conceived and remains.\u00a0 Reticulum was in beta <\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span> development until May, 2025.<\/p>\n

Using Python on a microcomputer such as a LilyGo T-Beam SUPREME would not be a wise decision; the ESP32-S processor is usually coded in C++<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span> as housing a Python interpreter in the small memory space of the T-Beam would be challenging, at best. I never gave much thought about Reticulum being called a protocol and assumed<\/em> somewhere buried in the extensive documentation there was a specification for the protocol.<\/p>\n

I had assumed that when something was called a protocol, there would be a specification document somewhere behind it. That assumption was wrong. There is no specification<\/strong>.\u00a0 In Reticulum\u2019s case, the term \u201cprotocol\u201d is being used in a more implementation-centered sense: the authoritative behavior is embodied in the Python code base and accompanying manual. If one wants to create a C++, Rust, Java, or other independent implementation, one must study the Python implementation and infer the required behavior in order to make the migrated code conform.<\/p>\n

I’ve been using microReticulum now for several weeks and testing and came to the realization I was using Reticulum’s LINK protocol to send messages back and forth among the various T-Beams.\u00a0 As I ran into problems, I realized the error of my decision to use the LINK “protocol”.\u00a0 I have since learned that the current practice for Reticulum clients is to use the LXMF (Lightweight Extensible Message Format) “protocol” <\/span>3<\/sup><\/a><\/span>.\u00a0 So now I really wanted to see a specification so I could understand precisely what would be needed to accomplish T-Beams talking to one another and just how they handle reaching out and communicating.\u00a0 How would they exchange messages?\u00a0 That’s when I learned about what I think of a protocol being, i.e. something with a specification such as RFC 9110 (infra<\/em>), vs. “reference implementation<\/a>” protocol.\u00a0 I was not familiar with the term “reference implementation” as I assumed the use of the term protocol meant there was an underlying specification.\u00a0 “My bad.” <\/span>4<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Protocols With Specifications<\/h3>\n

HTTP<\/h4>\n

Here is an example of a protocol that has a specification: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”).<\/p>\n

HTTP is the application-level protocol that lets web clients and servers exchange requests and responses: a browser asks for a resource, and a server replies with status, headers, and content. Unlike a code base where \u201cthe implementation is the protocol,\u201d HTTP has formal specifications maintained through the IETF [Internet Engineering Task Force<\/a>] RFC [Request for Comments<\/a>] process. RFC 9110<\/a> “HTTP Semantics” defines HTTP\u2019s common semantics: methods such as GET and POST, status codes, header fields, caching concepts, URI schemes, and the rules shared across HTTP versions. RFC 9112<\/a> then specifies the HTTP\/1.1 wire format: message syntax, parsing, connection handling, and related security concerns.<\/p>\n

A programmer writing an HTTP server in C, Java, Perl, Python, or C++ is not supposed to reverse-engineer Apache, nginx, curl, or Firefox and call that the protocol; the programmer codes against the specification. In that sense, the specification is the contract: it says what conforming implementations must send, must accept, may reject, and may extend. The house-building analogy is close: an as-built house can reveal many design choices, but it is a poor substitute for the building code, drawings, tolerances, and inspection criteria that tell everyone else how to build a compatible, and safe, inspectable structure that complies with current codes.<\/p>\n

Other Protocols<\/h4>\n

See also these protocols and their specifications:<\/p>\n