RE: [rohc] Updating the Formal Notation draft

["Price, Richard" <richard.price@roke.co.uk>]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments!  I've added a couple of replies inline.

Regards,

Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB) 
> [mailto:Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se]
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:55 AM
> To: 'rohc@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [rohc] Updating the Formal Notation draft
> 
> 
> > 1. We should give the notation a better name, e.g. ROHC-FN
> >    (Formal Notation for Robust Header Compression).
> 
> Yes!
> 
> 
> > 2. The "rules" should be called "encoding methods" to bring the 
> >    terminology in line with RFC 3095.
> 
> OK!
> 
> 
> > 3. The "labels" should be renamed "temporary variables" to
> >    make it clearer what they actually do!
> 
> I am not sure, to me "variables" does not make much sense in
> a formal notation. I have to think more about this...

For this reason, I suspect that using the name "variables" would
be an excellent idea!  From a technical perspective we definitely
have this functionality in the notation - whether it's a good
idea or not is open for debate, but we should at least clarify
that the functionality is there so that folks can argue for or
against it.

The term "labels" is misleading, because it implies that they
take the same constant value for each header.  In fact, the value
of a label can change as the header is being parsed - hence the
term "variable" is more appropriate.

> > 4. The names of encoding methods and variables should be
> >    cleanly separated, e.g. by using lowercase for the names
> >    of encoding methods and uppercase for variable names.
> 
> I would leave that for now.

Ok, I'll stick with what we've got at the moment (lowercase for
encoding methods, mixture of uppercase and lowercase for variables).
This is fine for now.

Regards,

Richard
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc