Re: AD comments on draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-08

Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]> Tue, 26 May 2009 11:09:55 +0200
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.rohc
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Ertekin, Emre [USA] skrev:
> Hi Magnus,
> 
> Thanks for your comments to our IKEv2 Extensions to support ROHC draft.
> I aggregated all discussions in the email exchanges, and summarize the
> adjudications/way forward for each comment.  Please see below:  
>  
>> Section 2.1.2
>>
>> Maximum Context Identifier (MAX_CID, AF = 1)
>>       The MAX_CID attribute is a mandatory attribute.  Exactly one
>>       MAX_CID attribute must be sent.  The MAX_CID field indicates the
>>       maximum value of a context Identifier supported by the
> ROHCoIPsec
>>       decompressor.  This attribute value is two octets in length.
> The
>> Ertekin, et al.          Expires August 6, 2009                 [Page
>> 5]
>> Internet-Draft   IKEv2 Extensions to Support ROHCoIPsec    February
>> 2009
>>
>>       range of values for MAX_CID must be at least 0 and at most 16383
>>       (the value 0 implies having one context).  The recipient of the
>>       MAX_CID Attribute must only use up to MAX_CID context
> identifiers
>>       for compression.
>>
>>       Suggested value: 15
>>
>> The suggested value seems to me to be highly variable depending on
>> particular usage. Therefore this value should be put in a context on
>> where it is suitable. Also, is this a minimal required or simply a
>> recommendation.
> 
> We recommended this value such that we ROHC can operate within the
> boundary of small CIDs.  The value is useful for SAs that are only
> carrying a few flows.  
> 
> However, I agree with you that this value really depends on the usage
> scenario.  For a ROHCoIPsec SA that is compressing traffic for a large
> number of flows, a larger MAX_CID value might be more applicable.  We
> will add clarifying text to indicate this.
> 
> This value wasn't intended to be a minimal required, just a
> recommendation--similar to how hop-by-hop doesn't specify a minimal
> required value for this channel parameter.
> 

Okay, no problem when you add the discussion about other values in other
usage scenarios.

For the rest it seems that they are being solved.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------