[rohc] The discussion on slope(s)

["Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[e-mail]>]

ROHCers,

In Washington DC, we had a discussion about the 3095 slope
problem, which still is an open issue for the implementer's
guide to clarify, if we want to ensure interoperability. My
initial opinion was that the previous discussions on the list
indicated we would have to do a careful study of this to be
able to get consensus, and write a draft explaining both
operations (with and without implicit slopes). However, the
sense of the room I got was that we should not waste too
much effort on this, but actually declare implicit slopes as 
not to be part of 3095, and in the implementer's guide just
point out the text parts of 3095 that caused this confusion
and clarify accordingly. Although I personally agree with
this approach and believe it is the only reasonable way to
go, I will not propose any text for the implementer's guide
before there is consensus to go with the proposed approach.

Therefore, I ask for opinions on this, more or less
elaborated. See it as a HUM, with possibility to provide
more details. 

To find the previous ROHC list discussion on slopes, please
refer to the archives from March 17 to April 16 this year.

This is currently the only open issue for the implementer's
guide and I need your help to get this resolved.

Thanks!
/L-E

-----------------------------------
Lars-Erik Jonsson, M.Sc.
Senior Research Engineer
Wireless IP Optimizations
AWARE - Advanced Wireless Algorithm Research
Ericsson Research, Corporate Unit
Ericsson AB
Box 920, S-971 28 Luleå, Sweden
E-mail: [e-mail]                      /"\
Phone: [phone]                                      \ /
Fax: [phone]               ASCII Ribbon Campaign      X
Home: [phone]           against HTML email & vCards  / \

My opinions are my personal opinions and should not be considered
as the opinions of my employer, if not explicitly stated.

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc