RE: [rohc] Role and approach of the ROHC formal notation

["Price, Richard" <richard.price@roke.co.uk>]

> >     4) Do you really believe that all the kind of stuff we had
> >        in 3095 could be captured this way? Note that Roke Manor
> >        themselves had problems to make the EPIC stuff operating in
> >        anything but unidirectional mode. There is much to consider
> >        when using feedback, and operating towards contexts.

Hi,

This is news to us!  Our implementation of EPIC has a full state
machine including feedback, context management, error recovery and
all of the other functionality of RFC 3095.

Perhaps you're thinking of the state machine in the old EPIC-lite
draft, which only supported unidirectional mode?  The reason it
didn't include the more complex features from RFC 3095 was because
we wanted to minimise the risk of IPR claims against the draft -
not because of any technical limitations of a notation-based approach.

Regards,

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