IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 03 December 2004 20:05 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00818 for <rohc-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:05:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CaJmZ-0002yr-V6 for rohc-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:12:01 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CaJPo-00089U-VV; Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:48:29 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CaIuF-0003H9-Nu for rohc@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:15:51 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23180 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:15:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imh.informatik.uni-bremen.de ([134.102.224.4] helo=informatik.uni-bremen.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CaJ01-0000iI-Rh for rohc@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:21:51 -0500
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (imh [134.102.224.4]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iB3JFcAm004270; Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:15:39 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <A943FD84BD9ED41193460008C7918050072E99C9@ESEALNT419.al.sw.ericsson.se>
References: <A943FD84BD9ED41193460008C7918050072E99C9@ESEALNT419.al.sw.ericsson.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <B7E6C657-455F-11D9-951E-000A95DC4DB6@tzi.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: [rohc] The discussion on slope(s)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:15:39 +0100
To: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS/Sophos at informatik.uni-bremen.de
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rohc@ietf.org, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "'zhigang.c.liu@nokia.com'" <zhigang.c.liu@nokia.com>, "Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB)" <ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com>
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rohc-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rohc-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email