Hi,
The header compression is not recommended in the draft. We will address the
issue in the "Open issue" section in conjunction with new achievements like
ROHC.
For the use of timestamp option with window sizew less than 64KB, there is
no recommendation. We will reflect your comment in the next draft.
Hiroshi Inamura
----- Original Message -----
From: "borderlt" <border@hns.com>
To: <inamura@mml.yrp.nttdocomo.co.jp>; <gab@sun.com>;
<hata@mml.yrp.nttdocomom.cp.jp>; <mhara@FLAB.FUJITSU.CO.JP>;
<joby@MIEL.MOT.COM>; <wag@cup.hp.com>; <Alan.Hameed@fnc.fujitsu.com>;
<Reiner.Ludwig@Ericcson.com>; <RGarces@Metricom.com>;
<peterf@Exchange.Microsoft.com>; <fergus.wills@openwave.com>
Cc: <pilc@grc.nasa.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:45 PM
Subject: Re draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-00.txt...
>
> Is header compression used? (I am guessing not or it would have been
> mentioned.)
>
> The document recommends the use of Timestamps when a window of greater
> than 64 KB is used. What about when the window is less than 64 KB? Are
> Timestamps recommended for this case? The answer should probably be
> explicitly stated. (Or, if there is no recommendation, this should be
> explicitly stated.) The thought was triggered by the previous question,
i.e.
> (my understanding is that Timestamps interfere with the ability to use
header
> compression.) (But, I think ROHC is looking to do something abou this.)
>
>
> John
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 09:12:26 EST