Re: RFC4995 update posted

Kristofer, all,

I have checked the new document with rfcdiff and it looks fine. I agree
with Kristofer's suggestion to make it a WG item. If no one have any
objections, I will make it a WG item on Wednesday.

Thank you Kristofer for drafting the new document and Jani for finding
the feedback size issue.


Best regards,

/Carl Knutsson, ROHC WG chair


Kristofer Sandlund wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have just submitted draft-sandlund-rohc-rfc4995bis-00 which is
> intended
> to obsolete RFC4995 by fixing one error in the spec and add
> a small clarification to it. The error is what prompts us to want
> to update the draft, while the other part is just a clarification.
> Link to the draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sandlund-rohc-rfc4995bis-00.tx
> t)
> 
> 
> List of changes:
> - In section 5.2.4.1, the definition of the Size and Code fields
>   are erroneous compared to RFC3095, the problem is due to a merge
>   of multiple ASCII graphics into a one picture and we forgot to
>   update the text. The correct definition is that these fields
>   should include the length of the CID fields (if any).
>   Therefore the sentences defining the meaning of these two
>   fields are updated.
>   Thanks to Jani Juvan for locating this problem.
> 
> - In the uncompressed profile, it was not spelled out that one should
>   use optimistic approach type of logic and repetition of IRs
>   before receiving feedback. Therefore, we added a new section 5.4.3
>   which lists these things.
> 
> - The doc now uses standard symbolic references as per RFC editor's
>   guidelines insetad of the numeric references used in 4995
> 
> - Minor formatting changes (more or less spaces here and there) due
>   to using a different source format than the original draft
> 
> Our wish is to publish this as a new RFC that obsoletes RFC4995.
> In order to get that done quickly, it would probably be
> useful to convert this into a WG draft, get a quick review and
> pass it up to the IESG as soon as possible.
> Please review this draft (I recommend doing an rfcdiff against
> RFC4995). Let us know if there is anything else that could use updating
> or polishing in RFC4995.
> 
> Rgds,
>   Kristofer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc