Re: [rohc] ROHC feedback
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 03 April 2007 10:32 UTC
Return-path: <rohc-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYgJ9-0001QU-BF; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:32:11 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYgJ8-0001Pg-23 for rohc@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:32:10 -0400
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de ([2001:638:708:30c9:209:3dff:fe00:7136] helo=informatik.uni-bremen.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYgIq-00079x-Co for rohc@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:32:10 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (maildrop [134.102.201.19]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.0/8.13.2) with ESMTP id l33AVgrX012518; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:31:43 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <1175588844.8987.32.camel@bsarkar-desktop>
References: <A91F30A632473A47B40C18D2B107CA6F03CE31A5@esealmw105.eemea.ericsson.se> <1175588844.8987.32.camel@bsarkar-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="MACINTOSH"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <E6EDA160-CFCC-46FD-BBA7-2305D74A94C9@tzi.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: [rohc] ROHC feedback
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:31:33 +0200
To: bsarkar@starentnetworks.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, rohc@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rohc-bounces@ietf.org
On Apr 03 2007, at 10:27, Biplab Sarkar wrote: > One should be discouraged to use MAX_CID=0 Indeed (why would one want to do this?). Of course, the interesting thing with starting a new CID for a new call that immediately follows a preceding call is that you are then stuck with that (non-zero) CID for the duration of that flow (or until you IR context CID=0 with the same flow, which also is a bit inefficient). CR would help a bit here (but the CR packets still aren't second order). All quality of implementation issues, nothing to standardize here. (Except that the full-byte penalty for CID≠0 is somewhat unfortunate, but we didn't have a way to come up with a smaller penalty.) Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ Rohc mailing list Rohc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
- [rohc] ROHC feedback Biplab Sarkar
- RE: [rohc] ROHC feedback Kristofer Sandlund (LU/EAB)
- RE: [rohc] ROHC feedback Biplab Sarkar
- RE: [rohc] ROHC feedback Kristofer Sandlund (LU/EAB)
- Re: [rohc] ROHC feedback Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rohc] ROHC feedback Biplab Sarkar