Subject: RE: IMPORTANT: RE: [rohc] RoHC-FN List encoding question

From: "Finking, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:12:20 -0000

From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:52 PM
> 
> 
> On Nov 10 2004, at 05:56 Uhr, Finking, Robert wrote:
> 
> > The whole point of the list notation is to
> > avoid having all that extra junk! All the notator should have to 
> > specify is
> > what items can appear in the list.
> 
> We were trying to get rid of any special list notation because it is 
> harder for the notator to understand both the strange things list 
> notation does and the specification in this notation than just the 
> things that need to be said in (normal) FN notation.
> 
> I believe we have succeeded in simplifying things considerably.

You have succeeded in simplifying the notation considerably, but not the
profile - you have made that more complicated - and let's not forget that
the profile is the focus of our development here ;-) For the profile to be
simple to read and understand, the notation must take on the complexity.
Otherwise the profile will be impenetrable. (I would like to suggest at this
point that the box/English notation is an extreme example of this - very
simple notation = very complicated profile)

Cheers

Raffles

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:10:14 -0500

> simple to read and understand, the notation must take on the 

In the end, the reader needs to understand both.  If the interfacing 
between the "simpler" list notation and the text in the FN 
specification is becoming too complex, this is counterproductive.
Besides, the FN spec is really barely more complicated the way we have 
done it now.

Gruesse, Carsten