[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [rohc] Clarification to 5.6.4
It seems that it was I who was not clear. Like you, I think that the
body of section 5.6.4 should be a single sentence. So we are indeed
in agreement here.
Micke
At 12:09 PM 12/7/00 -0600, zhigang.liu@nokia.com wrote:
>Hi Mikael,
>
>Perhaps I'm not clear in my email. What I suggest
>is that the section 5.6.4 consists of only one
>sentence: "Same as section 5.6.3". It should
>suffice.
>(It is the first part of the 5.6.4 as in -06 that
>causes the confusion)
>
>Br,
>Zhigang
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: EXT Mikael Degermark [mailto:micke@CS.Arizona.EDU]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:22 PM
>> To: zhigang.liu@nokia.com
>> Cc: lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com; rohc@cdt.luth.se
>> Subject: RE: [rohc] Clarification to 5.6.4
>>
>>
>> Hi Zhigang,
>>
>> We are all in violent agreement here. We want the spec to say that
>> the transition procedure for going from U to R is the same as the
>> procedure for going from O to R.
>>
>> While this is the intent of the current text, it could
>> conceivably be interpreted
>> as saying that a transition from U to R involves an
>> intermediate step (and a
>> ACK(O) packet). That is not the intent. A clarification is
>> needed. The text
>>
>> "Same transition procedure as in 5.6.3"
>>
>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. Note that this is not a
>> change in the
>> protocol, only a clarification.
>>
>> Mikael Degermark
>>
>> At 07:12 PM 12/6/00 -0600, zhigang.liu@nokia.com wrote:
>> >Hi Lars-Erik and others,
>> >
>> >I remember I have sent comments/suggestions on this section
>> >a few times, without receiving any comment.
>> >(http://www.cdt.luth.se/robhc/msg01056.html,
>> >http://www.cdt.luth.se/robhc/msg01384.html.)
>> >
>> >I'd like to suggest again: can we simply put one sentence,
>> >"Same as section 5.6.3", in 5.6.4, for the following reasons?
>> >
>> >1) There is no "step" in the diagram on page 64 and elsewhere
>> > in 5.6.
>> >2) There is no difference (procedure-wise) between the
>> > transition O->R and U->R.
>> >
>> >Br,
>> >Zhigang
>> >
>> >> Micke asked me to clarify that it is NOT necessary to transit
>> >> to Optimistic mode first and then go further to R mode.
>> Let us just
>> >> add this sentence to the end of section 5.6.4.
>> >>
>> >> " .....procedure in 5.6.3 above. It is thus possible to skip
>> >> the first step
>> >> described in 5.6.2, if R-mode is the desired mode."
>> >>
>> >> /L-E
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Lars-Erik Jonsson, M.Sc.
>> >> Wireless IP Optimizations
>> >> AWARE - Advanced Wireless Algorithm Research at Erisoft
>> >> Ericsson Research, Corporate Unit
>> >> Box 920, S-971 28 Luleå, Sweden
>> >> E-mail: lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com
>> >> Phone: +46 920 20 21 07
>> >> Fax: +46 920 20 20 99
>> >> Home: +46 920 999 57
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
>> >> Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/rohc/
>> >>
>> >---
>> >Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
>> >Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/rohc/
>> >
>>
>---
>Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
>Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/rohc/
>