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

From: "Finking, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:08:18 +0100

]> 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.

Hang on, I think we have a misunderstanding here. The generic FN doesn't
define any external encoding methods does it? It's not intended to. If I've
given that impression in my text, it needs to be corrected. The FN should
only define what an external encoding method is and give examples of the
usage of external encoding methods. Apologies if I have communicated
something else!

Raffles

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:13:17 +0200

> ]it.

Yes, this is what I was thinking we were doing.

> ]Listing non-defined methods in the generic FN seems very strange
> ]to me.
>

Agree.

Gruesse, Carsten