RE: [rohc] RE: Default decompression algorithms

"Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se> Mon, 25 February 2002 07:52 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 CAA01760 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:52:05 -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 CAA02089; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:48:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA02060 for <rohc@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:48:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se (penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [193.180.251.34]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01733 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:48:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from esealnt461 (esealnt461.al.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.251.61]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.11.0/WIREfire-1.3) with SMTP id g1P7mMB24713 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:48:22 +0100 (MET)
Received: FROM esealnt400.al.sw.ericsson.se BY esealnt461 ; Mon Feb 25 08:48:15 2002 +0100
Received: by esealnt400 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <Z1HYXD06>; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:48:15 +0100
Message-ID: <A943FD84BD9ED41193460008C791805003E31E1D@ESEALNT419.al.sw.ericsson.se>
From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se>
To: "'Abbie Barbir'" <abbieb@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [rohc] RE: Default decompression algorithms
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:47:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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

> > > > LEJ: why should WE make any algorithm 
> > > >      mandatory at the decompressor. 
> > > 
> > > RP: We shouldn't - in my opinion it would be a mistake for the 
> > >     ROHC Working Group to do more than standardize the algorithms 
> > >     themselves. The final decision on whether algorithms are 
> > >     mandatory or optional should be made in the context of a 
> > >     particular application. 
> > 
> > OK, then we do not have a disagreement. This was not clear from 
> > your previous posting: 
> >
> AB: sounds good, standardize the algorithm themselves and let the
> application specify the default one. 

[LEJ: ] By defining the UDVM-solution, we do not have to standardize any algorithms. We may describe example UDVM algorithms, but from our point of
view the algorithms themselves do not have to be standardized.

/L-E

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