Err. I'm not sure what asn.1 is missing for this? I've seen lots of people use asn.1 exactly for this (i.e. writing a grammar for an arbitrary pre-existing binary format not readily described in asn.1).
asn.1 distinguishes between schema and encoding; there are many binary encodings and you can technically devise a custom one that would let you describe the high level structure with an asn.1 grammar and then lay out the actual bits with a custom encoding format so that it matches the pre-existing format you're writing the new serde for). This may work as many formats have this leveled approach. E.g. the lowest level of the spec may tell something about how to encode integers (all integers are 32-bit big endian, or varlen encoded ...), sequences (ength prefixed, or terminated by a sentinel.
Any chances you have some reference to what you saw?
Right I think we were working with PER (tagless) to match a complex multi-layer protocol. Can't share the exemple but let's say asn.1 helped generate saner code than the handrolled one AND allowed other languages to decode...
I understand what you're saying though. Memories of using this were... unpleasant. I think the 'best' alternative for me would be RecordFlux. Ada-like syntax, generation of AoRTE-provable SPARK code, and recently the expressivity of the tool has increased. And the whole thing is in python, easily extensible to build things from the type description: generators, fuzzers, advanced specific parsers (need only one field and want the control fields' positions and sizes), wireshark plugins, Postgres extensions...
I really like what they're doing there. Might be the one of the low-effort (for the user!) lead-bullets for safer software.
