Subject: RE: [rohc] RE: External Encoding Methods (was: RE: ROHC-FN Snapsh ot - Wednes day's update)

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:01:46 +0200

> > Why would you at all mention a method that is not defined in the FN?
> 
> One of the main advantages of having an FN is that it can be 
> automatically checked for completeness, inconsistencies etc.
> Cf. the use of tools like "smilint" in MIB module design.

You are not talking about checking the notation, but checking a
specification making use of the notation, right??

> If the FN code does not provide any indication that an 
> encoding method name is, in fact, something that you expect
> to be defined elsewhere, it cannot distinguish between typos
> and english-language defined encoding methods.  Hence the idea
> to somehow declare the encoding methods defined in english language.

So, you mean that a profile specification can not extend the generic
FN with additional formal methods, if one wants to check the final
result (including *all* methods used) automatically with a parser???

> The underscore notation essentially says "trust me, this is defined 
> elsewhere" at the place where the encoding method defined in english 
> language is being referenced. The explicit declaration provides even
> better error checking, but requires another line in the FN code.

Ok, so why don't you just have that escape character (underscore) when
you *use* a method? A parser that sees such a method can then ignore
it. Listing non-defined methods in the generic FN seems very strange
to me.

/L-E

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:23:20 +0200

> specification making use of the notation, right??

Good point.

Let's fix the language.

FN = formal notation.  This is what is being defined in the 
specification (oops) draft called draft-ietf-rohc-formal-notation

FN specification.  This is one specification of a header compression 
scheme that is written in formal notation.  This is what is being 
defined in draft-ietf-rohc-tcp, together with additional information 
that is needed to make the specification of the header compression 
scheme a complete one.

I'm rather guilty of sloppy language here, because I have called the 
specification document defining the FN "the FN specification", which is 
of course hard to distinguish from "an FN specification" in the sense 
used above.  So I'll stop hurting ourselves now...

And yes, I want to check each "FN specification" using a semantic 
checker, not the notation itself.

Gruesse, Carsten