RE: rohcv2 draft 04: glitches in formal notation

Hi Thomas,

yep, you're right about that.
I will patch this as well as the similarly missing thing one line below
for the list_present, but I prefer to use CVALUE instead of UVALUE here,
although it has the same end result.

BR,
  Kristofer

Thomas Lefort <mailto:[email protected]> wrote on den 25
januari 2008 18:15 :

> Hello,
> 
> I found a couple glitches in the FN part of rohcv2-profiles-04. In
> format rtp_dynamic (rtp method), fields (tss_ and tis_indicator) are
> used as the flag argument to the sdvl_or_default method. A field
> identifier is not a valid expression; I guess what is meant
> here is tss_
> and tis_indicator.UVALUE.
> 
> Regards,
> Thomas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc