IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: SigComp Requirements (was Re: [rohc] RE: Default decompressio n algorithms)

"Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se> Thu, 28 February 2002 08:45 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14660 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:45:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA13508; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:37:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA13481 for <rohc@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:37:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se (penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [193.180.251.34]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA14537 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:37:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from esealnt461 (esealnt461.al.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.251.61]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.11.0/WIREfire-1.3) with SMTP id g1S8bVB10808 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:37:31 +0100 (MET)
Received: FROM esealnt742.al.sw.ericsson.se BY esealnt461 ; Thu Feb 28 09:35:55 2002 +0100
Received: by esealnt742.al.sw.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <F4G2H5KT>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:26:13 +0100
Message-ID: <A943FD84BD9ED41193460008C791805003E31E54@ESEALNT419.al.sw.ericsson.se>
From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se>
To: "'Miguel A. Garcia'" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Subject: RE: SigComp Requirements (was Re: [rohc] RE: Default decompressio n algorithms)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:12:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: rohc-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: rohc-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org

> > RP: Is it important from a technical perspective for 3GPP to
> > have an algorithm negotiation mechanism?
> 
> MG: Yes, it is important. Definitely. We don't want to stick to a 
> single algorithm that is deployed to millions of terminals forever.

OK, and with the UDVM-approach, you can use any algorithm at any time.


> > RP: If the ROHC WG can beat the algorithm negotiation approach in terms
> > of all of the above, is it still necessary to provide an algorithm
> > negotiation mechanism within SigComp?
> 
> MG: Yes, as I said before, Yes, it is a requirement. Mobile 
> operators don't want to restrict to a single algorithm in
> the network, they want extensibility
> 
> Removing the negotiation mechanism in SigComp is like removing the
> codec negotiation in SIP.

The UDVM provides you with total flexibility regarding compression
algorithm, and you do not necessary need an explicit negotiation 
mechanism.

/L-E
 

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email