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

Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> the slope itself would not be covered by a CRC
> 
> 
> Kristofer,
> 
> what do you mean by this?
> 
> If we assume the msg934 model for slopes 
> (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc/old-archive/msg00934.html), 
> the slope is established from CRC-protected packets only.
> (Since ACKs can get lost, there is still some uncertainty what slope is 
> actually established, so the compressor has to be careful about what it 
> has sent, but this is a detail.)
> 

Yes, of course the update packet itself has a CRC. But the slope value is not 
transmitted, it is inferred based on timestamp history so it is not covered by 
that CRC. So, maybe I should have spelled that out, but I figured that should 
have been clear from earlier discussions.

> Of course, the slope itself indeed is not protected.
> Also, of course, CRC-protected packets still have a non-zero probability 
> of bit errors being uncaught.

Exactly what I meant.

/Kristofer

> 
> Gruesse, Carsten

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