Re: New ROHC Milesstones.

Hi Emre,

The IPDVB WG is probably a good candidate for the ROHC-over-DVB
document. There will probably be more ROHC-over-X documents in the
future. Sometimes it will not be perfectly clear in which group the
documents will end up. I guess it will be up to the AD to decide how
handle this.

I will try to follow up on all ROHC related documents and give reviews
to the best of my abilities, even after the conclusion (now/later?) of
the group. I hope all rohc wg members will do the same.

/Calle

Ertekin, Emre [USA] wrote:
> Hi, Carl,
> 
> Please find below my comments.
> 
>> The item I want to mark as "Done" is:
>>
>> Dec 2006 - Revised ROHC IP/UDP/RTP profiles submitted to IESG for
>>            publication as Proposed Standard
>>
>> Mar 2007 - IKE/IPsec extensions for HC-session Parameter Negotiation
>>            submitted to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
>>
>> Mar 2007 - Header Compression over IPsec (HCoIPsec) submitted to IESG
>>            for publication as Informational
>>
>> The first item resulted in RFC 5225, the second and the third items
>> forms the ROHCoIPSec framework and are all drafts):
>>
>> draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-11
>> draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09
>> draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipsec-05
>>
>> All ROHCoIPSec have passed the AD evaluation and drafts are now in IETF
>> last-call.
> 
> I am fine with marking these items as "Done".
>  
>> Feb 2007 - ROHC encapsulation profile(s) for IPHC/CRTP/eCRTP submitted
>>            to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
>> Jan 2007 - RObust Header Compression Protocol Number Registration
>>            submitted to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
>>
>> This was added before I started as a chair and it is not completely
>> clear to me what the consensus is for this item. I can't really see
>> what
>> these new legacy profiles solve that can't be solved by existing
>> profiles. I would like to have this discussion now.
> 
> I expressed my interest in this proposal a while back for a number of reasons, including providing a bridge for existing HC implementations into the ROHC framework.  There was pushback from the WG then, still seems like there is pushback now...
> 
>> The Protocol Number Registration item is not needed. The registration
>> is
>> included in the ROHCoIPSec drafts.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> On a separate note: in passing discussions, I have heard interest in the development of a ROHC over DVB spec.  However, I presume that if this work takes place, it would fall under the IPDVB WG. 
>