IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [rohc] Default decompression algorithms

"Dr. Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 20 February 2002 20:44 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 PAA19478 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:44:40 -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 PAA19968; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:41:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA19934 for <rohc@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:41:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nmh.informatik.uni-bremen.de (root@nmh.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19337 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:41:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cabo3 (root@nmh.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.3]) by nmh.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id g1KKfB400300; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:41:11 +0100 (MET)
From: "Dr. Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
To: "Price, Richard" <richard.price@roke.co.uk>, "'Lars-Erik Jonsson \(EPL\)'" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se>, "Conroy, Lawrence \(SMTP\)" <lwc@roke.co.uk>
Cc: <rohc@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [rohc] Default decompression algorithms
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:41:10 +0100
Message-ID: <NFBBJFHGMCFINEMHAMBGAEGOHHAA.cabo@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <76C92FBBFB58D411AE760090271ED4186F9FCA@rsys002a.roke.co.uk>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I would be very happy to include both approaches in the SigComp solution

Folks,

we seriously need to combat featuritis at this time.

To me it seems the current draft is about twice as complex as it needs to
be.
We need real time to fix all the small details in that complexity.
Complexity grows at least with some polynomial of the feature set.

If we want to finish in time, we need to focus on removing, not about
adding.

Since anybody can "profile" SigComp to include certain state ab initio, I
would like to propose that we end this discussion now.

Gruesse, Carsten

PS.: When we are last-calling stuff, we can go back to generating nice
informational RFCs with example decompressors.


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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email