Subject: [rohc] ROHC FN review

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:22:44 +0100

ROHCers,

I have put a review of draft-ietf-rohc-formal-notation-11.txt at

http://www.tzi.org/~cabo/draft-ietf-rohc-formal-notation-11-cabo.txt

This includes a couple of comments plus an ABNF definition of the FN  
grammar.
As I'm still putting both through their paces, the file may change  
from time to time; please refer to the version control comment at the  
top.

Gruesse, Carsten

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

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:47:52 +0100

Carsten,

> This includes a couple of comments plus an ABNF definition of the FN

Can you explain what you want to say with the latter (ABNF)? 

/L-E

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:09:29 +0100

On Oct 31 2006, at 08:47, Lars-Erik Jonsson ((LU/EAB)) wrote:

> ABNF

Sorry for being too terse.

In -11, the grammar of FN specs is defined only in English.
While reviewing the document, I have attempted to write down the  
grammar of FN specs in the customary IETF notation, ABNF (RFC 4234).

This is not strictly necessary for ensuring interoperability (FN  
specs are not sent over the wire), but it sure helped me understand  
the details of what I was reading.

The next step, of course, is to validate the ABNF against the FN  
specs out in the wild (and vice versa!).
I'm working on that.

As a general comment on my approach, ABNF isn't the greatest method  
for specicying language syntaxes, but it is the one grammar spec  
language that most IETFers understand.
(Also, as with most grammar languages, ABNF can't capture the  
semantic constraints.  Doing that would verge on tool development,  
though, which is best left outside of the specification document.)

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:12:03 +0100

> grammar. As I'm still putting both through their paces, the file may
> change from time to time; please refer to the version control
> comment at the top.

Can you please send the result to the list, so that it gets archived!

Thanks!
/L-E

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:14:30 +0100

> Can you please send the result to the list, so that it gets archived!

Will do in a couple of days (it's > 130 KB and still changing while I  
validate it).

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:15:41 +0100

> http://www.tzi.org/~cabo/draft-ietf-rohc-formal-notation-11-cabo.txt

I got some comments on the ABNF and have uploaded a new version (1.4)  
to this place.

Apart from the ABNF, my review comments look quite similar to those  
from Mark, by the way.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "West, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:29:56 -0000

I agree with Carsten that a formal description of the FN syntax would be a 'good thing'; ABNF seeming to be the weapon of choice.  I haven't actually looked at Carsten's comments yet (having not wanted to bias my review) -- but I guess you'll have to take my word for that... ;-)

Cheers,

Mark.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 10/31/2006 3:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Carsten Bormann
Subject: Re: [rohc] ROHC FN review

Gruesse, Carsten