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

From: "Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:08:59 +0200

> Interesting.
> How would you define ipv4_inferred_checksum except in english?
> (How would you define "irregular" except in english?)

I meant using the english language in an more or less informal manner, such as this possiblity was open in the latest version of the draft using the exemple (although it was flagged as not recommended to do so):

   crc_field ::= _four_bit_crc; % see www.ciphersbyritter.com/ARTS/CRCMYST.HTM
 
> > or worse - pointing to a 3095 encoding method?
> 

The point is that we should not leave the possibility that the encoding method is not defined in a formal way, and in its entirety outside either the profile document or the FN library.

Thus, according to the above, external encoding methods won't even exist, right?

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:27:52 +0200

On Sep 30 2004, at 17:08 Uhr, Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB) wrote:

> I meant using the english language in an more or less informal manner, 
> such as this possiblity was open in the latest version of the draft 
> using the exemple (although it was flagged as not recommended to do 
> so):
>

Ah, I hadn't seen this.
This one we don't want.
My assumption was that there was going to be a section in the 
specification that makes use of FN that defines painstakingly (in 
english language) what a _four_bit_crc is on both its uncompressed and 
compressed side.

> The point is that we should not leave the possibility that the 
> encoding method is not defined in a formal

When you say formal, you mean rigorous?
To define it in a formal way, you need a formal notation, and the whole 
point of this discussion is to be able to have encoding methods where 
the existing formal notation is not good enough to define them, so you 
have to resort to english language.

>  way, and in its entirety outside either the profile document or the 
> FN library.
>

Right.
Let's strike the term "external".

Now we can return to the question whether there should be something in 
FN to signify "method mumble is defined in english language that 
accompanies the FN-written part of this spec".  For which we would have 
the underscore thing or a special way of writing an encoding method 
definition, as in

mumble === ;

or whatever.

Gruesse, Carsten