Formal Notation for RObust Header Compression (ROHC-FN)
draft-ietf-rohc-formal-notation-13

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

I can't find this work anywhere in the charter or
milestones. Was there an explicit discussion whether standards
track is appropriate?

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

It would be useful if the document explained the level
of formality it actually provides. For instance, do we
have tools that given a formal definition, can generate
a full implementation of a compression profile? Or is
that only possible in some circumstances, or perhaps
not all? Are there checks that can be run on the
formal specification beyond satisfying syntactic
and basic semantic rules?

Note also the possibility that at least parts
of the specification can exist in natural
language only (see below) or be references
to external algorithms to computing specific
values.

> The ROHC-FN provides a library of commonly used encoding methods.
> Encoding methods can be defined using plain English, or using a
> formal definition consisting of e.g. a collection of expressions
> (Section 4.7) and "ENFORCE" statements (Section 4.9).

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection