rohc team mailing list archive

["Wong, Tak - 0665 - MITLL" <Tak.Wong@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Didier:

   Yes, I think we should.  Unfortunately, we have made significant modifications in the library to accommodate our kernel modules with other compression
protocols.  I think we are going to look at your fixes and incorporate them, instead of upgrading the entire library.  On another note, your fix to allow multiple options list structs, with rasing the wlsb_width parameter significantly reduce our errors.  By the way, how high can wlsb_width be set to, and what is the
tradeoff with a high wlsb_width value?

Thanks and kind regards,

TW

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohc [mailto:rohc-bounces+tak.wong=ll.mit.edu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Didier Barvaux
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 2:45 PM
To: rohc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Rohc] ROHC TCP dynamic field changes


>   We are using revision 996.

Please consider updating to latest revision (1091 at the time of
writing) because I fixed more than 30 problems with the TCP profile since revision 996.

Regards,
Didier