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

[khiem.le@nokia.com]

Hi Lloyd,

Please see my comments marked KL, below. Thanks

Khiem

-----Original Message-----
From: EXT Lloyd Wood [mailto:l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 6:31 AM
To: zhigang.liu@nokia.com
Cc: rohc@cdt.luth.se
Subject: RE: [rohc] draft-ace-robust-hc-01.txt


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...

KL: The draft states very clearly what the assumptions are. The relaxing of
the packet ordering assumption is just a side comment. I don't see any
chance of people getting confused.

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

Hey! Academic paper!

KL: I don't see the relationship between giving basic and clear ideas and
the "academic" or "non academic" nature of the draft. Are you implying that
"non-academic" papers don't give the basic and clear ideas? Am I missing
something here?

L.

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

---
Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/rohc/