Re: [rohc] The discussion on slope(s)

> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc/current/msg02081.html
> > (the last one included questions to Zhigang, which were ignored)
>
> I probably missed Kristofer's email. 

Well, you answered, but not to the questions he asked.

> > Finally, I would like to send a direct appeal to Zhigang, as a
> > comment on yesterday's mail on this subject:
> > 
> > > ZL:
> > > I think it's fair to also look at the arguments that dynamic
> > > (or learned or implicit) slopes are in 3095. I have given some
> > > back in March/April. Below is one of them. If I have to summarize
> > > in one sentence, the argument is that if dynamic slopes are not
> > > in 3095, many text (some are essential to encoding) wouldn't 
> > > make sense without twisting hard the meaning of words.
> > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc/current/msg02101.html
> >
> > Can you then list these parts, please cut and paste the sentences
> > in an e-mail, do not use references. 
>
> I thought providing a link is a better way than resending the same
> email. But I'll do it as you wish.

I did not ask for the same "clarification" you had already provided
for the slope approach, but rather for all these text parts of 3095
that you say would have to be twisted hard if there was no slope.

/L-E

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