Subject: [rohc] SigComp editorial comments - lejo

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 23:49:00 +0100

I've separated my comments on SigComp in two mails, and these are the ones
I consider pure editorial, although some of them might relate to non-editorial
aspects. In the same way, some of the non-editorial issues I've provided in my 
might possibly be more or less editorial. 

Cheers,
/L-E

lejo-edit-1) Is "shim layer" the right name/view for what SigComp is. In any
             case, it should probably be better explained in the document
             when it first appears. This is absolutely not an obvious 
             concept.

lejo-edit-2) Figure 1 should maybe indicate that SigComp is configured for
             each application, with standardized default values for appl.
             parameters and how SigComp usage is invoked for a specific
             application.

lejo-edit-3) Figure 1 should maybe show 2 incoming and outgoing flows
             since it shows two compressors and two decompressors.

lejo-edit-4) Terminology could maybe be sorted in some way. (A,B,C...)?

lejo-edit-5) In section 3.2, "announcements" suddenly appear, as if it
             was already a well-known concept. I do not think it is at that
             point, but must be explained before it is further mentioned.

lejo-edit-6) The purpose of each application specific parameter should be
             explained in the text.

lejo-edit-7) First paragraph of section 4.2 should be rewritten to indicate
             that no state identifiers have to be present, which the current
             text basically precludes. 

lejo-edit-8) In section 5, it should be made clear that algorithm upload
             from compressor to decompressor is the assumed "normal"
             behavior, although one may use predefined algorithms, for
             which a decompressor may announce support through reserved
             state identifier values. However, the latter is not the 
             general approach. Current text could easily be interpreted
             as if the opposite was the case.
  
lejo-edit-9) Section 7, second paragraph should say "...algorithms, the
             COMPRESSOR implementer has the freedom to..."

lejo-edit-10) Section 7, fourth paragraph should maybe read: "This chapter
              describes THE basic features of the UDVM, including ITS
              DEFINED variables and operands." 

lejo-edit-11) Is "well-known" a good name for the variables, it is a rather
              unclear wording (section 7.1).

lejo-edit-12) Section 9.4.9 refers to STATE-REQUEST, but should probably
              refer to STATE-REFERENCE.

lejo-edit-13) "Uncompressed"/"Decompressed" is not clearly used. If not
              defined, "uncompressed" might also refer to the decompressed
              values. The current document uses "uncompressed" for both
              and that is confusing.

lejo-edit-14) Do not include mail addresses for acknowledged people, there
              are enough of long-term-unreliable references anyway.

lejo-edit-15) Extended op, first paragraph on page 5, could read: "This
              functionality of SigComp can be used as outlined in this
              document...". Remember that this document is not a normative
              document anymore, but suggests how to implement things. The
              title should maybe also be adjusted because of this.

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc