Subject: RE: [rohc] sigcomp issue cabo-15

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:14:53 -0600

[Carsten wrote:]

> > Also, some application simply does not need 64K. Note that in -05, the 
> > maximum_state_size is represented as a multiple of UDVM_memroy_size.
> 
> That sounds like a mistake.  

I think so too.

> Having a small set of UDVM sizes (even if its cardinality is not one) is a
> boon.

That I certainly agree. I just don't think there is a one-size-fit-all 
UDVM size. 

> The likely sizes I've heard so far have been 2K (stateless), 8K
> (stateful toaster) and 64K (cadillac).  Maybe 4K (stateless with
> complicated algorithm), 16K (more stateful double-slot toaster), 32K
> make sense, too, in some cases -- convince me *).
> 
> I believe that's it.  Let's not create more choice that only creates
> more headaches.

Looks good enough for me. So we use 3 bits for {2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64}
with two patterns reserved. BTW, 32 fits nicely in the exponential
steps. Good enough reason to keep it? :-)

(1K is too small to be useful in practice)

BR,
Zhigang

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc