Re: [rohc] New ROHC Milesstones.

[Emre Ertekin <emreertekin.ietf at gmail.com>]

> 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 push-back from the WG then, still
seems like there is push-back 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.

BR,
Emre