RE: TS clarification (was: [rohc] The discussion on slope(s) (red ux))

[zhigang.c.liu at nokia.com]

> 1) A solution with an implicitly updated slope is not defined in 3095.
>    This was captured already in the original posting by Pawel in March:
>      "The mechanism is not described in the standard. Only 
>       default_slope values are defined."

But Pawel agreed with me later (April 2004) that TS_STRIDE and slope are 
two different things. He also gave another reason (AMR SID frames) in
addition to what I provided. 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc/current/msg02138.html

Did you read it?

Also, did you read email Kamal who also agreed with me also in April 2004?
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc/current/msg02100.html


> 3) When looking at potential ways to actually define an implicit slope
>    mechanism, people got really concerned about the synchronization 
>    problems associated with it, and even yourself noticed that:
>      "I have to be honest: there might be, but I'm not sure yet."

First, here is what I said in full context:

  "This is still being discussed. I have to be honest: there might 
   be, but I'm not sure yet. Either way, I don't think it's a 
   problem serious enough to kill implicit slope."

Second, being honest and straightforward is what I believe a 
constructive way for technical work. So, above was my state of mind 
back in December last year. I don't make conclusion before I do my own
homework. Later I had time to do more analysis on the concern, which 
shows it is insignificant. Please read my updated proposal and tell
me if you agree or not, and why.

> 4) The technical argument for having dynamic slope(s) at all was seen
>    as rather insignificant, 

Why did you reach this conclusion? Have you read above emails from
Pawel and Kamal? Have you sent out any technical analysis to backup
your opinion?

BR, Zhigang

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