Subject: [rohc] Sigcomp Nack Draft -01

From: "Surtees, Abigail" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:28:47 +0100

Hi All,

Here are some comments on the Nack draft.

Section 2.1

Last sentence:
The change in  behavior for a reliable transport no longer involves re-transmitting the message so why would you need to be able to retrieve a plain-text version of the message?

Section 2.3.2

If the underlying TCP connection has caused SigComp to fail, can it be trusted to transmit a NACK?

Section 2.4

This mechanism is a good idea.  It gives a definitive way for a compressor to find out if the other end supports the nack scheme.

The probe idea is also possible but does have the limitations mentioned so I don't think is worth having to the draft.

Appendix B: Changes

Moving NACK parameters:
Isn't it impossible to have standalone feedback messages (other than NACKs) because there is no way to determine for which compartment the ACK is unless there is a message to go with it?
I don't think there is any problem with the message format itself.

Best regards,

Abbie

Abbie Surtees
Engineer
Internet Applications and Mobility
Roke Manor Research Ltd
Tel:   +44 (0) 1794 833131

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