Re: [rohc] Re: [nemo] Fwd: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-minaburo-rohc-nemo-00.txt

[Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org>]

I'm not sure the present draft is really doing much more than pointing 
out a potential use for ROHC.

To get interoperability, one would need to
-- specify how the use of ROHC is negotiated or otherwise initiated 
between the parties
-- specify the encapsulation
-- specify how to deal with reordering (see also 
draft-ietf-rohc-over-reordering-02.txt, which just went to WGLC)
-- possibly select a subset of the now no longer trivial gamut of ROHC 
profiles to choose from.
A standards-track document should nail down these (and anything I might 
have forgotten).
We can do without a rehash of ROHC fundamentals.
(A couple of diagrams/examples pointing out how the result of the whole 
thing will look like would be nice, though.)

RFC 3241 is one example for the kind of "ROHC-over-X" document needed.

Clearly, the two working groups will need to collaborate on this.
I don't have a strong feeling which working group should be the "home" 
WG.
Given that similar considerations apply in other uses of ROHC in a 
mobile IP environment, I'd like to spend some time hallway-discussing 
this with the usual suspects in Paris.

Gruesse, Carsten


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