ROHCv2 submit and Write-Up.

Hi all,

I have asked the IESG to publish draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-
profiles-05.txt as RFC. I am sending the entire Write-Up to the ROHC-WG
mailing list (as recommended in RFC4858).

I want to thank everyone in the WG that contributed to this document. I
apologize for delay of the actual submit. The administrative tasks takes
a bit longer than one might expect. This is the first document I am
sheparding. Hopefully I got the whole submit process right:)

The write-up follows below...

Best regards,

/Carl Knutsson (ROHC WG Chair)

---

Write-up for draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles:

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
      document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
      version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Carl Knutsson (ROHC WG chair) is the Document Shepherd, has personally
verified this version of the document, and believes that it is ready
to forward to the IESG for publication.

(1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
      and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

This draft (and previous versions of the draft) have been well-discussed
on the ROHC mailing list by key WG members as well as persons connected
to 3GPP and 3GPP2 standard bodies. Four active WG participants have
provided comprehensive reviews as Committed Document Reviewers. Newer
WG members have also provided useful review to the document. The
Document Shepherd is confident with the depth and breadth of the reviews.

(1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
      AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns. The draft uses RFC4997 formal notation (FN). The ROHC FN
is somewhat complex, however a large portion of the FN code could be
reused from RFC4996 (ROHC-TCP) with improvements.

The document shepherd expects that the General Area Review Team would
review this document, but no additional review is required.


(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues
      with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
      IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he or she is
      uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
      concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any event,
      if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it
      still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns
      here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been
      filed. If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and
      summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue.

The document shepherd does not have specific concerns or issues
with this document.

(1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
      represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
      others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
      agree with it?

The shepherd believes there is a clear WG consensus behind this
document.

(1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent?

None that the shepherd is aware of.

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
      http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
      not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
      Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The Document Shepherd has verified that the document satisfies all ID nits.

There are no additional formal review criteria that are applicable to this
document.

(1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
      are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
      state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
      strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
      so, list these downward references to support the Area
      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split into normative/informative. There is a
normative reference to the ROHC framework RFC4995. An error has been
found in RFC 4995 that makes piggybacking of feedback impossible.
This is not a key feature and a new draft has already been
created to replace or update RFC4995. Otherwise none pending.

(1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
      of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
      registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
      the document creates a new registry, does it define the
      proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
      procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
      reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
      the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
      needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document has an IANA section, requesting registration of ROHC
profile identifiers for the new ROHCv2 profiles.

(1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
      an automated checker?

The Document Shepherd has checked and verified the formal notation
(RFC 4997) part of the document. The authors have used an inofficial
non-public automated checker as support to the work. There is however
no complete and publicly available automatic checker for the ROHC
formal notation, however all reviewers including the Document
Shepherd are confident that the formal notation part of the draft
is correct.

(1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?


Technical Summary

  This document defines RObust Header Compression (ROHC) profiles
  for compression of IP, UDP/IP, ESP/IP, UDP-Lite/IP,
  RTP/UDP-Lite/IP and RTP/UDP/IP packets.

  They represent a second generation of profiles (ROHCv2) to the ROHC
  framework (RFC 4995). ROHCv2 profiles include a number of
  simplifications to the algorithms used to govern the behaviour of
  the compression endpoints. They are designed to efficiently and
  robustly handle long round-trip-times, packet loss and packet
  reordering over the ROHC channel.

  The ROHCv2 profiles supersede but do not obsolete the earlier
  generation of profiles specified in RFC3095, RFC3843 and RFC 4019.


Working Group Summary

  This document has been in the working group for roughly 18 months.
  The document originated from implementation experience gained with
  RFC 3095, from which implementers have outlined its complexity and
  the relevance of defining simpler profiles, as well as from the
  requirement and the need to introduce support against reordering
  between compression endpoints.

  These new profiles were first drafted as an individual submission,
  and the first draft was submitted to the WG in September 2006.
  Initially, there was a relatively large interest for the new
  profiles, but few technical reviews. Since May 2007, the active
  participation in the working group to this draft has accelerated
  and ultimately the document received several comprehensive reviews.
  The general design approach is similar as for ROHC-TCP (RFC 4997),
  and has not changed significantly since it was first introduced
  in the group. The WG have a consensus for the new profiles.

Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by several individuals, with
  different perspectives and approaches to the reviews. The formal
  notation part was verified manually but also partly validated by
  automated tools.  During WG Last-Call, the document was reviewed by
  the committed WG reviewers Robert Finking, Haipeng Jin, Rohit Kapoor
  and Mark West.  In WG reviews and otherwise, feedback has been
  received from persons active in the ROHC WG as well as in 3GPP and
  3GPP2 standard bodies.

Personnel

  Authors are Kristofer Sandlund and Ghyslain Pelletier. The Document
  Shepherd for this draft is Carl Knutsson, and Magnus Westerlund
  is the responsible Area Director.