MarinoMtz
commented
1 year ago -
Selection Probability --> Rule selection procedure: Ana: If there are two rules that apply it is up to the implementation to select the rule. LT: We shall select the one that gives the best compression Conclusion: Keep it as in the RFC
-
Destructive Compression: ignore-not_sent 2.1 Good for fields like Up limit: LPWAN 2.2 If it is a router, we shall not use destructive compression.
- Add a chapter to specify in which cases we shall not use destructive compression. Look at examples from RFC 8724. figure 27. Case for CoAP,
- Change Destructive Rule and rather use the term Destructive Compression
- For the impact -- packet size vs hamming distnace
- Put attention to the way of selecting the rule, better compression does not necessary means good security, but it is an implementation problem
Destructive Rules: In SCHC equal/not-send, ignore/value-sent, ignore/compute-*, MSB/LSB, Match-mapping/mapping-sent do not destroy the information. The information is either in the TV or in the residue. So the equilibrium is that a specific rule (more info in the TV) send less residue but as a smaller probability to be selected. Destructive compression ignore/not-sent forces the decompression to take the TV regardless of the initial value. It is possible to create some very attractive rules (very small residue) and with a high probability. Therefore no valuable info is sent on the link.