Subject: Re draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-00.txt...

From: borderlt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:45:14 -0500

Is header compression used?  (I am guessing not or it would have been
mentioned.)

    The document recommends the use of Timestamps when a window of greater
than 64 KB is used.  What about when the window is less than 64 KB?  Are
Timestamps recommended for this case?  The answer should probably be
explicitly stated.  (Or, if there is no recommendation, this should be
explicitly stated.)  The thought was triggered by the previous question, i.e.
(my understanding is that Timestamps interfere with the ability to use header
compression.)  (But, I think ROHC is looking to do something abou this.)

John

---

From: "Hiroshi INAMURA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 05:39:51 +0900

Hi,

The header compression  is not recommended in the draft. We will address the
issue in the "Open issue" section in conjunction with new achievements like
ROHC.

For the use of timestamp option with window sizew less than 64KB, there is
no recommendation. We will reflect your comment in the next draft.

Hiroshi Inamura

----- Original Message -----
From: "borderlt" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:45 PM
Subject: Re draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-00.txt...