Re: [Megaco] [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Package - Recursiveness vs multiplicity

["Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Christian,

> With regards to AVD-4504 I think i'd be happier adding "~" if we also tied that capability to a package.

We had the same idea. 
The "~" as advanced wildcarding capability would definetely match the scope of an "advanced SDP wildcarding package".

BR,
Albrecht


-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Groves [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Donnerstag, 6. März 2014 14:00
To: Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht); Tommy Young
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Package - Recursiveness vs multiplicity

Hello Albrecht,

OK I see your point, the usage of "recursion" doesn't meet mathematical/logic definition. I'm OK to rename it. Maybe the "multiple value response" wildcard?

With regards to AVD-4504 I think i'd be happier adding "~" if we also tied that capability to a package.

Regards, Christian

On 6/03/2014 8:01 PM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
> Hello Christian, Tommy,
> thanks for the package proposal, a good solution for the related problem in our opinion.
>
> One pre-meeting comment concerning terminology, because possibly caused by us. We were also struggling (when working on AVD-4504) with the editor's note concerning "recursion", but couldn't remember a real example.
>
> If we consider a single SDP line, then recursion would be a structure like "X = Y ... X ...", right?
> However, such SDP line grammar is not possible.
>
> If we consider line interlinkage, then a circular definition could be e.g.
> X = Y ...
> Y = X ...
> But again, such SDP line grammars are not possible.
>
> Thus, perhaps we should term the "$R" wildcard as "multiplicity wildcard" or sth similar, but not "recursive wildcard".
> Or "cardinality wildcard" ... hm?
>
> What do you think?
> Albrecht
>
>
> Ref.:
> AVD-4538 H.248.39 Updates: Additional wildcarding
> AVD-4504 H.248.39 (Rev.): Wildcard "~" -  Continuation of discussion
>
>