[rohc] RE: Default decompression algorithms

"Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se> Fri, 22 February 2002 08:19 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 DAA24177 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:19:41 -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 DAA03784; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:14:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA03753 for <rohc@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:14:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (albatross-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [193.180.251.46]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24133 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:13:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from esealnt409.al.sw.ericsson.se (ESEALNT409.al.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.251.32]) by albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.12.1/8.12.1/WIREfire-1.4) with SMTP id g1M8DUZc019685 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:13:30 +0100 (MET)
Received: FROM esealnt742.al.sw.ericsson.se BY esealnt409.al.sw.ericsson.se ; Fri Feb 22 09:13:30 2002 +0100
Received: by esealnt742.al.sw.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <YHKDWARS>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:03:54 +0100
Message-ID: <A943FD84BD9ED41193460008C791805003E31E1A@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: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:55:03 +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,

> > LEJ: why should WE make any algorithm
> >      mandatory at the decompressor.
> 
> RP: We shouldn't - in my opinion it would be a mistake for the 
>     ROHC Working Group to do more than standardise the algorithms
>     themselves. The final decision on whether algorithms are
>     mandatory or optional should be made in the context of a
>     particular application.

OK, then we do not have a disagreement. This was not clear from
your previous posting:

> > > RP: Clearly a mandatory default algorithm must be supported
> > >     at both ends, so that at least one algorithm is always
> > >     available for the compressor to use.
> > >
> > > RP: Making one or more of these well-known algorithms
> > >     mandatory at the decompressor doesn't contradict the
> > >     UDVM approach because the decision on which algorithm
> > >     to use (or whether to download a new one) is still made
> > >     by the compressor. 

I guess you meant that for specific applications of SigComp, e.g.
a 3GPPP SIP proxy decompressor, one or several algorithms could
be made mandatory, and that is true. However, that is irrelevant
for our work here and therefore the above statements confused me
since I assumed you talked about what WE are defining. It is not
necessary to ever have any mandatory algorithms, but external
users may of course decide to require that.
 
Cheers,
/L-E

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