Subject: RE: [rohc] RE: Annotoations - was (RE: ROHC-FN Snapshot - Wednesd ay's update )

From: "Finking, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:50:39 +0100

Ghyslain said:
]Fair enough, but this is the reader's problem. The definition of 
]comments using % notation is already a warning that this is not a 
]formal part of the definition.
]
]Our responsability is to make sure that these comments are not wrong 
]before publication, so that this situation does not happen. It does not 
]belong to the notation itself to provide a solution to the problem to 
]mention imho. 

OK, I think I can see a theme developing here. There are two points I want
to make:
 1. The reader matters. We don't want the reader to have a problem. The
reader is you or me or anybody else helping *develop* a profile. The point
of both the annotation and the leading underscore notation is to help
expedite the production of the profile, and
 2. The other point of these two devices is to give the reader of the final
published profile confidence that the profile is correct. It's true that
some errors will get picked up by hand, such as the one Kris noticed, but
it's a lot slower to pick them up by hand, than it is to do it
automatically, and crucially, it's a lot easier to miss an error when
checking by hand, which means there are more likely to be errors in the
published profile.

I think I understand where you're coming from now, but my experience is that
facilitating the use of tools for these sorts of things leads to much better
productivity and nicer end results too.

Cheers

Raffles

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

---

From: "Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:35:34 +0200

Argh. I totally agree that tools are helpful.
My point is that they don't belong to specs!
So the stuff needed for tools can and should be left for the input to the tools or coded in the tools themselves.

/Ghyslain

> -- 
> Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk
> 
> Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK.
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments 
> is confidential to
> Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third 
> party without
> permission. This communication is for information only and 
> shall not create or
> change any contractual relationship.
>

---

From: "Finking, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:57:25 +0100

]
]Argh. I totally agree that tools are helpful.
]My point is that they don't belong to specs!
]So the stuff needed for tools can and should be left for the input to ]the
tools or coded in the tools themselves.

Ah, OK, so is the sticking point this:

   That you think it is possible to have tools without the spec providing
the syntax they need to work on, whereas I (and I assume Carsten) don't?

Raffles

PS Re: "Argh", sorry to reiterate! One of my mails was direct to you and
crossed over with the other due to the 15 minute lag I'm getting from the
list server.