RE: [rohc] Updated FN Draft - Appendix A

["Finking, Robert" <robert.finking at roke.co.uk>]

> the description of let must at
> least be improved so that it can be read without a mathematical
> mindset. The example appendix B must then also be expanded to cover
> also the assertion usage of let, both when used separately and in
> combination with a definition. Currently only the definition usage,
> which I find fully intuitive, is exemplified.

OK, whilst the discussion is going on (thanks guys for engaging on this),
why don't I also update the description of "let"? I'll try and get an
improved (but not intended to be final) set of words out to the I-D editor
before I leave today. I have been avoiding doing any updates in case the
syntax changes as a result of this discussion, but I can see that in order
to make progress we're probably going to have to try a few ideas out, so
I'll start with an improved (hopefully) description, to see how much that
helps.

If anybody is in disagreement with this, shout up quick!

Regards

Raffles

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