Subject: [rohc] RE: Default decompression algorithms

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:55:03 +0100

Richard,

> > 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 standardise 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:

> > > RP: Clearly a mandatory default algorithm must be supported
> > >     at both ends, so that at least one algorithm is always
> > >     available for the compressor to use.
> > >
> > > RP: Making one or more of these well-known algorithms
> > >     mandatory at the decompressor doesn't contradict the
> > >     UDVM approach because the decision on which algorithm
> > >     to use (or whether to download a new one) is still made
> > >     by the compressor. 

I guess you meant that for specific applications of SigComp, e.g.
a 3GPPP SIP proxy decompressor, one or several algorithms could
be made mandatory, and that is true. However, that is irrelevant
for our work here and therefore the above statements confused me
since I assumed you talked about what WE are defining. It is not
necessary to ever have any mandatory algorithms, but external
users may of course decide to require that.
 
Cheers,
/L-E

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

---

From: "Dr. Carsten Bormann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:24:04 +0100

One question about the compression algorithm negotiation:
Given that there are algorithms that take on the order of 50 bytes to send
over, why is it a win to spend maybe 100 bytes of overhead and a round trip
to negotiate that away?

Gruesse, Carsten