Subject: RE: [rohc] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rohc-context-replication-04. txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:02:09 -0400

> Making this change just creates more confusion in my opinion. 

Lars-Erik,

All it does is to clarify what Ghyslain just said in his 
email earlier, i.e. the CR draft does not preclude a new context
to be established by reusing a base context with a different
but similar source and/or destination IP addresses. 

How come it "just creates more confusion"? I become speechless. 
If you don't like the change I proposed, how about just adding the 
text above? I really don't care, as long as the CR draft is
(perhaps redundantly) clear. 

Haven't we learned enough lessons about not being clear in the past?

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

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:39:49 +0200

There are many things the CR draft does not preclude, as many
details are to be defined on a per-profile basis. The CR draft
does not preclude replication of any field in any way, as that
depends on what protocol headers are addressed by a profile.
What is it that you think is unclear, that is so important and
makes sense to specify explicitly in this document?

/L-E

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:02 PM
Subject: RE: [rohc] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rohc-context-replication-04.
txt