[rohc] RE: non-default capabilities

["Price, Richard" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

For the well-known but optional decompression algorithms, we need to assign a certain
identifier to each algorithm and then send a list of these identifiers from the
decompressor to the compressor. The compressor can then pick an algorithm from the list
or choose to download its own.

A mechanism to perform the above task was intended to be part of the SigComp draft, but
had to be deleted due to Hans' IPR concerns. Currently the compressor can only choose
between mandatory default decompression algorithms (supported at all decompressors) and
downloading new algorithms in the form of bytecode.

Hans: Would it be possible to provide some alternative text for the above algorithm
negotiation mechanism, such that your IPR concerns disappear?

Regards,

Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) 
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:54 PM
> To: Price, Richard; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: non-default capabilities
> 
> 
> 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
> -- 
> [e-mail]: [phone]::<my opinions>:
>