RE: Candidate for New WG Draft

Hi James,

I may support a QoS CT draft. I generally think with QoS you may get 
bigger audience. Not a great percentage of population understands
the intricates of the HC protocols, plus that HC CT involves the most
challenging problems of all contexts in CT, so it might scare too many
people off, but it is up to you guys. Personally trying to design a CTP,
I was facing the toughest issues when thinking about HC.

Regards,
Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 1:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Seamoby] Candidate for New WG Draft


Folks,

As a compliment to the CT draft, Pat and I think it would be sensible to
have a draft that describes how CT could be used for a particular context.
In the past, Seamoby has not focussed on this, since our position has been
it is up to other WGs that have responsibility for the particular feature to
do the design work for that feature, but we keep getting the question "give
me a concrete example of what CT would be used *for*?" We'd rather not
include this in the base CT draft, because then people would think that it
is required to implement that particular context when implementing the
transfer protocol. So, since transfer of header compression context is the
candidate easiest for people unfamiliar with CT to understand, we'd like to
recommend that the WG consider the following draft for WG draft status:

    http://www.geocities.com/kempf42/draft-koodli-seamoby-hc-relocate-02.txt

This is a draft that was originally submitted two years ago and expired. It
defines a way to transfer ROHC header context between access routers. The
original draft defined its own CT protocol. In this update, Manish Tiwari
has agreed to act as editor and has modified the protocol to use the Seamoby
CT protocol defined in draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp-02.txt.

The draft was submitted to the drafts editor yesterday, but after the 00
deadline. It isn't clear whether the drafts editor will consider it a 00
draft (since the original expired), in which case, the draft won't be
accepted until after IETF 57, or a continuation of the original, in which
case, the draft will show up in the drafts directory prior to IETF 57. In
any case, we'd like to encourage people to read the draft and comment on the
mailing list. Manish will discuss mailing list comments at IETF 57 and we'll
see whether the WG thinks the draft is a good candidate for WG draft status.
If we do decide to accept it, Pat and I (with Allison's help) will recruit
some reviewers from the ROHC list to make sure the header compression
details are correct.

Please give the draft a good read and comment to the list. Thanx.

            jak


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby