RE: [rohc] FN let statements and TCP packet formats (was: Updated FN Draft - Appendix A)

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

OK, great. Thanks L-E. In that case the only issue is the lack of clarity in the description. I'll update the draft to try and clarify the let statement section as requested previously.

Regards

Raffles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) 
> [mailto:lars-erik.jonsson at ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 8:08 AM
> To: pelle at cdt.luth.se; Finking, Robert
> Cc: Carsten Bormann; rohc at ietf.org; Kristofer Sandlund
> Subject: RE: [rohc] FN let statements and TCP packet formats 
> (was: Updated FN Draft - Appendix A)
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Personally, I liked the new proposal from Robert, that made
> much more sense to me than the let. Further, I do not understand
> the concern Ghyslain expressed about the new proposal, i.e. I
> do not see what would be wrong with it.
> 
> Anyway, it seems like I am the only one disagreeing with the
> let statement, and I will not continue to argue if there is
> consensus among the others that I am just a disturber in this
> matter (as seems to be Ghyslain's opinion). I now leave it up
> to you to decide whether to address my concern or not, in any
> case I will at least be happy with 95% of the FN.
> 
> /L-E
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pelle at cdt.luth.se [mailto:pelle at cdt.luth.se]
> > Sent: den 7 April 2005 22:23
> > To: Finking, Robert
> > Cc: 'Carsten Bormann'; rohc at ietf.org; Kristofer Sandlund; Lars-Erik
> > Jonsson (LU/EAB)
> > Subject: RE: [rohc] FN let statements and TCP packet formats (was:
> > Updated FN Draft - Appendix A)
> > 
> > 
> > > > I still don't understand what we are trying to achieve here.
> > > 
> > > We're trying to either make it easier for non 
> > mathematicians to understand or
> > > else to prove that doing so breaks the packet formats.
> > 
> > I don't understand either what we're trying to solve... I 
> > think that the let 
> > statement works well as it is, and if there is a risk that 
> > "non-mathematicians" 
> > won't understand it then it's simply to make sure that's it's 
> > properly defined 
> > in FN. This is becoming to close to become a matter of 
> > personal taste I feel.  
> >  
> > > > 
> > > > I have no problem leaving out the "when" (the parentheses 
> > did help 
> > > > syntax analysis; I don't think really bad things happen 
> > if you leave 
> > > > them out).
> > > 
> > > I think we want to see an explicitly "if" or "when" or 
> > something to make the
> > > non-binding conditionals obvious.
> > 
> > Now, this is where I might be shooting myself in the foot 
> > (laf laf) - I thought 
> > that these conditionals where binding, if not simply because 
> > they need to be 
> > reversible for the statement to be both valid for compression and 
> > decompression? It seems to me that there would be something 
> > missing if using 
> > a "if" the "intuitive" way - we'd have to redefine it to 
> > become equivalent to 
> > today's "let". What's the point?
> > 
> > Please, let's have the "let" rest in peace (or fix its 
> > definition so that 
> > anyone can understand it) and let us focus on reviewing the 
> > packet formats and 
> > actual compression...
> > 
> > /Ghyslain
> > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rohc mailing list
> > > Rohc at ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

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