RE: [rohc] draft-ace-robust-hc-01.txt

[Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 zhigang.liu@nokia.com wrote:

> > Efficiency cost? I couldn't find that bit. (There's a mention in
> > 2.2.3: affect not effect there) I missed 4.1, which is the explicit
> > ordering statement I was looking for. ACE is assuming that it's
> > working across an ordered link, yes?
> 
> Yes, the current ACE assumes an ordered link, for simplicity. But, as
> the draft also states (4.1) that this assumption can be relaxed in
> future version. What do you pay? Some extra overhead (but small). There
> is no free lunch :-). 

I thought drafts documented what is, not what will be. Otherwise you
get people building implementations with assumptions anticipating
future work that hasn't been done/proven yet...

> What we are trying to do is to give the basic and clear ideas.

Hey! Academic paper!

L.

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>