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

> I don't understand - what did I propose that contradicts the
> current SigComp/UDVM draft?

UDVM uses state identifiers that uniquely identify state.
In UDVM, there is no need for a central organization registering state
identifiers.

I agree that the UDVM scheme already contains the mechanism that would be
needed for state announcements.
I didn't think there was a need for new mechanism, regardless of whether you
think state announcements of the "I know this and I know that" style make
sense or not.

The final decision whether to use state announcements is made by the
implementation.
This is not new, and has been part of the UDVM concept for a while.

What is new is that you are proposing to introduce a new kind of state
identifier that is inefficient from a deployment point of view as it is
based on registries.

> Nothing needs to be added to SigComp in order to support my proposal.

Not true, your new kind of state identifier has properties that differ from
UDVM state identifiers.
They are not adding capability.  Why bother?

I'd rather work on finishing the document.

Gruesse, Carsten

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