Re: New ROHC Milesstones.

...and thanks for your input on the milestones.

/Calle

Carl Knutsson wrote:
> 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. 
>>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc