Subject: RE: [rohc] RE: Annotoations

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:34:25 +0200

> Hold on, I have proposed that earlier...
> I understand your mail as a bit contradictive:
> 
> > Then I propose that we do specify annotations that can be used
> > for verification purposes, but as a "formalized comment", i.e.
> 
> > The mechanism would then be present for us to use for verification
> > tools, while still not being part of the actual notation.
> 
> How do you suggest that we specify "formalized comments" 
> without being part of the FN?

Well I thought we might define the annotation format in the FN,
although it would be used (if used) as part of comments. With this
being defined within the FN, my idea was that the format would
still be more generally defined. But... (see below)
 
> I suggested that the ROHC-FN draft removes anything about 
> notation and that we had a note about such annotations being 
> used inside comments into the TCP draft, in the section where 
> we start specifying packet formats. Is that how you suggest it???

...when thinking more about this, I tend to agree with you that it
would actually make more sense to define such comment-annotations
within a profile where one would make use of them, as it would have
no normative meaning to define it in the FN. The same conclusion as
for the underscore escape character for methods.

/L-E

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:49:31 +0200

>> notation

Really? ;-)

>>  and that we had a note about such annotations being
> no normative meaning to define it in the FN.

As we are currently defining FN specifically for TCP, I don't have a 
strong feeling on what we put where.
FN will have to be updated for just about any other profile we do in 
it, anyway, and we can decide what we want to move back from TCP into 
FN when we do this.

> The same conclusion as

At some point, the TCP draft should have a section that 
summarizes/lists what methods are defined in English.
This section might be phrased like this:

	ipv4_inferred_dodo === "section 4.7";
	udp_inferred_glorp === "section 4.9";

An FN processor could take this as a hint that these methods are 
defined in English.
Look, Ma, no (leading) underscores.

Gruesse, Carsten