Re: [rohc] New ROHC Milesstones.

[Carl Knutsson <carl.knutsson at effnet.com>]

Carsten, Ghyslain,

I agree with Ghyslain here. I am having a hard time seeing any technical
argument that would motivate these new profiles.

/Calle (individual)

Ghyslain Pelletier wrote:
> Hello Carsten, others,
> 
> Given earlier discussions on this topic, my recollection is that there
> was no agreement to move this as a working group draft. The reasons for
> this was the lack of motivations, requirements or interest in pursuing
> this work. Furthermore, this would introduce additional complexity to
> our protocol, and the proposed solution has not been reviewed
> technically. 
> 
>> There are no new problems being solved, so much is true.
>> But they are solved in a different way
> 
> Given the admitted lack of a real problem to address, new solutions
> appear unnecessary and not worth-while the effort. Further, I do not
> believe that getting around some suspected IPRs (to possibly fall into
> other IPRs) is a typical motivation for specifying new profiles.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> ///Ghyslain
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rohc-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rohc-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Carsten Bormann
> Sent: den 10 september 2009 11:03
> To: Carl Knutsson
> Cc: rohc at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rohc] New ROHC Milesstones.
> 
> 
> On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:35, Carl Knutsson wrote:
> 
>> Feb 2007 - ROHC encapsulation profile(s) for IPHC/CRTP/eCRTP submitted
>>           to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
> 
> I wrote a draft for that,
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-rohc-avt-crtp-profile-00
> 
> As far as I know, this is technically complete and could be submitted to
> WGLC.
> 
>> =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.
> 
> There are no new problems being solved, so much is true.
> But they are solved in a different way, and possibly with different IPR
> considerations, based on existing IETF standards documents.
> I can't speak to the IPR considerations (and I would not want to discuss
> them on the WG list), but I've heard that some people are interested in
> them in the hallway.
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> Rohc at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc