[rohc] RE: Default decompression algorithms

"Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se> Thu, 21 February 2002 09:42 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 EAA12028 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:42:24 -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 EAA08226; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:39:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA08196 for <rohc@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:39:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se (penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [193.180.251.34]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11975 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:39:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from esealnt406.al.sw.ericsson.se (ESEALNT406.al.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.251.29]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.11.0/WIREfire-1.3) with SMTP id g1L9PMB16007 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:25:22 +0100 (MET)
Received: FROM esealnt742.al.sw.ericsson.se BY esealnt406.al.sw.ericsson.se ; Thu Feb 21 10:25:19 2002 +0100
Received: by esealnt742.al.sw.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <YHKD4ZB4>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:15:44 +0100
Message-ID: <A943FD84BD9ED41193460008C791805003E31E02@ESEALNT419.al.sw.ericsson.se>
From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se>
To: "'Price, Richard'" <richard.price@roke.co.uk>
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:25:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [rohc] RE: Default decompression algorithms
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

Richard,

> So for the wireless environment 3GPP will be
> able to choose their own list of mandatory and optional algorithms.

Yes, they use to do it that way, but why should WE make any algorithm
mandatory at the decompressor. As you say yourself, the decompressor
can announce what resources it has, and the compressor decides what to
use based on that, but the decompressor does not have to announce any
available algorithms. If it does not, the compressor just do not have
any other choice than to download its own algorithm.

> I would be very happy to include both approaches in the SigComp
> solution and leave the decision on which to use to the compressor.

Simple and well defined solutions with few options are usually
preferable when making standards, at least in the IETF. 

/L-E

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