Subject: RE: [rohc] RE: Annotoations

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:33:47 +0200

> On Oct 04 2004, at 10:57 Uhr, Finking, Robert wrote:
> 
> > I guess it depends if you're hand coding the parser or not, 
> > and also whether you want to stick to single character
> > lookahead or not (which makes things a lot simpler of course).
> >
> > Probably I better let Carsten answer this anyway!
> 
> Our tool is written in Prolog.
> Prolog DCGs can do unlimited look-ahead (without these we would never 
> have been able to parse the near-unparseable Lulea syntax...).
> 
> It is unsavory, but not particularly hard to implement, to change
> the syntax to look for special comments after delimiter symbols 
> and relate the contents of these comments to what was before the 
> delimiter symbol. 
>   I'll certainly bow to any rough consensus that emerges.

Then I propose that we do specify annotations that can be used
for verification purposes, but as a "formalized comment", i.e.
based on the following format:

        uncompressed_format  =   discriminator,     %[  8 ]
                                 tcp.seq_number,    %[ 32 ]
                                 tcp.flags.ecn,     %[  2 ]

The mechanism would then be present for us to use for verification
tools, while still not being part of the actual notation. To me,
this looks like a reasonable compromise, or?

/L-E

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