[rohc] non-default capabilities

Lawrence Conroy <lwc@roke.co.uk> Mon, 18 February 2002 12:57 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 HAA01510 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:57:34 -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 HAA17863; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:54:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA17836 for <rohc@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:54:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cundall.co.uk (dorfl.roke.co.uk [193.118.205.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA01353 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:54:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [193.118.192.41] ([193.118.192.41] verified) by cundall.co.uk (Stalker SMTP Server 1.7) with ESMTP id S.0000062574; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:54:15 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: lwc@193.118.192.24 (Unverified)
Message-Id: <p05100300b896a7d0bb91@[193.118.192.80]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:54:12 +0000
To: richard.price@roke.co.uk, Hans.Hannu@epl.ericsson.se
From: Lawrence Conroy <lwc@roke.co.uk>
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Subject: [rohc] non-default capabilities
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

Hi Learned Authors, Folks,
    I note that the new versions of the drafts (extended and the grand 
unified draft
SigComp-04) draft *are* available, via links on the charter page; I didn't see
ietf-announce messages for these, but they are there.

Having had a (very) quick look at the SigComp draft, I don't see how 
the capabilities
for non-default algorithms are supported - these were discussed on 
the list recently,
but how does an end point report the algorithms it supports (i.e. the 
states it has
available) to its peer (remote) entity?

I ASSUME that there will be a default, mandatory unencumbered 
algorithm that is known
to be supported and so this doesn't need to be reported; for the 
others, however...

Thus, a question - why is this not mentioned in the SigComp draft?
(or is it, in which case, where?).

all the best,
   Lawrence
-- 
lwc@roke.co.uk: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

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