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

Feel free to try to figure out how to get a scheme with an implicitly
learned slope robust and interoperable. Personally, I think this is a
concept that just creates troubles, but if someone can really define it
unambiguously and prove it will work, I will for sure take a look at it.

/L-E

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
To: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com>
Cc: <rohc@ietf.org>; "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>;
<zhigang.c.liu@nokia.com>; "Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB)"
<ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [rohc] The discussion on slope(s)

> > My conclusion is that there was no consistent consensus on
> > this issue, and the details were never worked out.
>
> I still think it is worthwhile to spend some time on this list to
> figure out what slope *could* have been if we had done the work in
> 2000.
>  From what I've seen so far I'm not even convinced it would have been a
> win.
>
> So, please let's continue the discussion about Zhigang's example and
> flesh it out with things like actual header types for each of the
> modes.
>
> Gruesse, Carsten
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> Rohc@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
>

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