Subject: NEW: sigcomp issue cabo-16 (was: RE: [rohc] sigcomp issue lejo-9 )

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:50:25 +0200

Since this is a different issue than what lejo-9 addressed,
we should thus track it separately. I've taken the liberty
to call it cabo-16, since it was brought up by Carsten.

Please express your opinions and suggest actions to this
new issue, we should not let it introduce additional delay.

Cheers,
/L-E

> Another interesting item raised by your message is that of upward 
> compatibility of pre-initialized VM values.  The compressor can 
> currently rely on all memory cells being initialized to zero, except 
> those identified in the document.  Since a compressor does 
> not indicate 
> the UDVM version it expects, UDVMs cannot pre-initialize 
> other VM values 
> without possibly causing unexpected results.
> On the other hand, initializing the memory is a must for security 
> reasons, and being able to rely on zeroes is good for saving 
> superfluous 
> initializations.  So maybe we want to reserve an area for extensions?
> (Probably taking care not to pollute the efficiently 
> addressable space 
> too much further.)
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten
> 

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