IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [rohc] non-default capabilities

Lawrence Conroy <lwc@roke.co.uk> Mon, 18 February 2002 13:22 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 IAA02127 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:22:06 -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 IAA19316; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:19:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA19283 for <rohc@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:19:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cundall.co.uk (dorfl.roke.co.uk [193.118.205.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA02046 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:19:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [193.118.192.41] ([193.118.192.41] verified) by cundall.co.uk (Stalker SMTP Server 1.7) with ESMTP id S.0000062575; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:19:12 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: lwc@193.118.192.24
Message-Id: <p05100300b896aee16489@[193.118.192.41]>
In-Reply-To: <NFBBJFHGMCFINEMHAMBGOEGEHHAA.cabo@tzi.org>
References: <NFBBJFHGMCFINEMHAMBGOEGEHHAA.cabo@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:19:08 +0000
To: "Dr. Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>, "Price, Richard" <richard.price@roke.co.uk>, Hans.Hannu@epl.ericsson.se
From: Lawrence Conroy <lwc@roke.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [rohc] non-default capabilities
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
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

At 2:07 pm +0100 18/2/02, Dr. Carsten Bormann wrote:
>  > I ASSUME that there will be a default, mandatory unencumbered
>>  algorithm that is known
>>  to be supported and so this doesn't need to be reported
>
>After the recent discussion, I'm not sure this is the current
>consensus of the WG.
>
>Gruesse, Carsten
To which I reply:

   OK - apologies - I was being imprecise.

In all cases in my previous posting, I was talking only about
->DECOMPRESSION<- algorithm support (default or otherwise).

I had assumed that choosing a default decompression algorithm
was still ongoing - Is there strong disagreement that there
should be one (albeit *which* one is still under consideration)?

best regards,
    Lawrence
-- 
lwc@roke.co.uk: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email