Re: [rohc] New ROHC Milesstones.

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

Hi Lei,

Thanks for you input on the milestones.

The document you list below are individual commits and not working group
documents. It is quite appropriate to discuss them here, but if you want
to make working group item out of them, you must build a strong case
motivated by technical arguments.

If you can build a strong case around these documents and gather enough
interest to add it as a work item, I will consider arranging a meeting
in Japan. Information about 3GPP meetings and discussions are not a
technical argument. I would expect an official liaison request from
3GPP, if they want us to start working on a new document.


Best Regards,

/Carl Knutsson

Zhu Lei wrote:
> Hi all,
>  
> As a follower of ROHC working group, I just at least two submissions
> regarding ROHC working group needed to be handled in any case.
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-rohc-over-802-02.txt
>  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lei-rohc-sigcomp-static-dictionary-01.txt  
> The authors may still think that document is a need to ROHC series or
> necessary standard reference to Signaling Compressing.
>  
> I used to expect considering a f2f meeting in 76th in this year since
> some potential works for header compression could be helpful to 3GPP
> which scheduled two RAN2/3 meetings in Sep., Oct. and Nov..
>  
> Therefore, I think the ROHC working:
>  
> 1. Is the working group maintains ROHC series specifications and
> signaling compressing protocols, and, some input of them still needs
> to be handled. (I believe that my static dictionary extension is needed.)
>  
> 2. The potential work is still pending in other SDOs. I am on the
> opposite site of this work, and also of the intention to close working
> group in Sep. 2009. We have to wait for some conclusions for a while
> which could be half year. Otherwise, the people don't follow ROHC WG
> would be very surprised that rohc just be closed at this moment.
> I, in some degree, underand ROHC wg enjoys very successful time in
> several years, and hope you considering the thought of mine.
>  
>  
> Best regards,
> Lei
>  
> ============================================================================================
>  
>  
>  
> rohcers,
> 
> It is time to update the milestones for the rohc wg. I should have done
> this a long time ago. I have sent my suggestion to our AD, but I want to
> make sure that it represent the consensus of the group and not just my
> opinions. So I need your feedback here. Please send in your comments
> about the new milestones.
> 
> Below follows my suggestion:
> 
> 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 would like to add one item:
> 
> Sep 2009 - Revised ROHC framework submitted to IESG for publication as
>            Proposed Standard
> 
> This is the new framework draft that is in WG last-call. It includes a
> fix to the feedback format (to make piggybacked feedback possible) and
> some editorial changes in the text.
> 
> I would like to remove two items.
> 
> 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.
> 
> The Protocol Number Registration item is not needed. The registration is
> included in the ROHCoIPSec drafts.
> 
> I would like to see a change of date for the last item. From Jun 2007 to
> Sep 2009. It is long overdue:
> 
> Jun 2007 - Recharter of WG to develop additional profiles if needed, or
>            possible additional compression schemes. Consideration of
>            concluding the working group.
> 
> Please send in your comments.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> /Carl Knutsson, ROHC WG Chair