RE: [rohc] SigComp implementer's guide

Hi Abbie,

Wonderful! Thanx.

Zacco

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Surtees, Abigail [mailto:abigail.surtees@roke.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 2:44 PM
> To: Lajos Zaccomer (IJ/ETH); rohc@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rohc] SigComp implementer's guide
> 
> 
> Hi Zacco,
> 
> This paragraph is the overall recommendations paragraph so 
> I'd prefer to
> keep the "nice sentence" in it.  However, I see that it could 
> be interpreted
> as relating to only the second sentence in the paragraph 
> which is, as you
> say, not the intention.  How about changing it slightly to 
> the following?
> 
> "   Consequently, where NACK is not supported or for NACK averse
>    compressors, the recommendation is that only one piece of minimum
>    priority state should be present in a compartment at any one time.
>    If both endpoints support NACK [3], then this recommendation may be
>    relaxed, but implementers should think carefully about the
>    consequences of creating multiple pieces of minimum priority state.
>    In either case, if the behaviour of the application restricts the
>    message flow, this fact could be exploited to allow safe 
> creation of
>    multiple minimum priority states; however, care must still 
> be taken."
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Abbie
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lajos Zaccomer (IJ/ETH) [mailto:lajos.zaccomer@ericsson.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 11:48 AM
> > To: Surtees, Abigail; rohc@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [rohc] SigComp implementer's guide
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Abbie,
> > 
> > Could you please relocate the "nice sentence"? ("In cases where
> >    the behaviour of the application restricts the message 
> > flow ...") My only problem is that it looks as though it is 
> > connected with NACK, but it is definitely not.
> > 
> > br/Zacco
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rohc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rohc-bounces@ietf.org]On 
> > > Behalf Of Surtees, Abigail
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 7:02 PM
> > > To: rohc@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [rohc] SigComp implementer's guide
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi All,
> > > 
> > > Since the last version I think it has been agreed that the 
> > > following should
> > > be added to the implementer's guide:
> > > 
> > > The shared-mode/minimum priority issue (text already 
> > > discussed on the list)
> > > SigComp shim uncompressed bytecode
> > > Discussion of the frequency of state identifier clashes (as 
> > > presented by
> > > Mark in San Diego)
> > > Note about the minor bugs in 3485 (incorrect priorities).
> > > 
> > > Are there any other issues that I've missed?
> > > 
> > > As these 4 actually amount to a fair amount of text, I won't 
> > > include it here
> > > but have uploaded a proposed version of the draft to
> > > <http://sigcomp.srmr.co.uk/~ahs/draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-impl-g
> > uide-04.txt>.
> > All comments and alteration suggestions to the text are 
> > appreciated.  In
> > particular, the sections above are  5.3, 11, 7 and 12, respectively.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Abbie
> > 
> > 
> > Abbie Surtees
> > Senior Engineer
> > Roke Manor Research Ltd
> > Old Salisbury Lane
> > Romsey, SO51 0ZN
> > Tel:   +44 (0) 1794 833131
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rohc mailing list
> > Rohc@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk
> 
> Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK.
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments 
> is proprietary to
> Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third 
> party without
> permission. This communication is for information only and 
> shall not create or
> change any contractual relationship.
> 

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