RE: [rohc] ROHC-TCP: Update and some topics to be discussed

["Price, Richard" <richard.price@roke.co.uk>]

> The editor added formats for IR and IR-DYN in the ROHC-TCP draft because
> he unfortunately hadn't realized that you also had a proposal for those
> and was under the belief that the IRs would follow the same structure as
> in RFC-3095. The idea was also to generate discussions on those to at
> least move forward with IR formats, while waiting for the CO packets. I
> should have added an author's note to this effect in the draft. Mea
> culpa. Obviously the IRs will be adjusted based on agreements on the
> list.
> 
> On the other hand I do agree with Lars-Erik that the issue on how to
> document the packet formats is the pressing issue. While this does not
> prevent us to comment on the formats that you have suggested, it does
> make it hard to include them to the ROHC-TCP draft at this point.

I certainly agree that more discussion is required on how to present
the packet formats in ROHC-TCP. However, doesn't the same apply for the
IR and IR-DYN packets? We need to decide how to present them before we
can include them in the ROHC-TCP draft.

Regards,

Richard

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc