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

> It's clear that different people have different interpretations
> of what is "current 3095". Some people implemented learned slope
> while others didn't. However, learned slope is not something new.
> It has been discussed and agreed when we wrote up RFC 3095 (see
> below). Unfortunately, it was not written clearly enough.

Zhigang,

as far as I understand the current discussion, it is not about whether 
3095 is clear about dynamic slopes (it clearly isn't) -- it is about 
whether dynamic slopes made it into 3095 at all.
We have discussed many mechanisms during the development of 3095, not 
all of which made it into the specification.

Let me give an example for a good argument that dynamic slopes are not 
in 3095.
Consider section 6.5.
This section was intended as the basis for future documents describing 
context transfer, so it lists all the state that a compressor/a 
decompressor needs to maintain.
Dynamic slopes are not among this state.

Gruesse, Carsten

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