RE: [robhc] Meeting at IETF47

[khiem.le@nokia.com]

Hi,

It is crucial to have the proper charter for this WG, if we want the output
of the work to be used or useful, especially to the cellular community. From
what I see and hear, I am not sure the various people and companies in the
cellular community have had enough opportunities to see this charter and
comment on it. I think we should have provisions to allow for adjustments to
the charter once we have in place the proper communications channels and
connections with organizations such as 3GPP, etc.

In the meanwhile, I have two comments on this charter:
- "Ideally, it should be possible to compress over unidirectional links".
This statement should be qualified, as it may imply that a solution that
works over unidirectional links is ideal. That is not necessarily true,
because, when a system is bidirectional, the optimal solution may very well
be one that takes advantage of the bidirectional property. The WG should
provide a solution for unidirectional links, but that does not necessarily
mean that other solutions, applicable to the case of bidirectional links,
should be precluded.  

- "Creating more thorough requirements documents will be the first task of
the WG". We should add something like "Input from the cellular community and
standards organizations will be sought".

Regards

Khiem


-----Original Message-----
From: EXT Lars-Erik Jonsson [mailto:lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 8:04 AM
To: Patil Basavaraj (NTC/Dallas); robhc@cdt.luth.se
Cc: micke@cs.arizona.edu
Subject: Re: [robhc] Meeting at IETF47


The IESG has reviewed the charter and we are awaiting the official
announcement.
I think it is Mikael Degermarks responsibility as chair to ensure that we
get a
time slot. but I'll check that with him immediately.

/L-E




>
>What is the current status for ROBHC?
>Has the IESG approved the charter and the formation of this
>effort as a WG? Is an official announcement all that is awaited?
>I am confused by what you mean when you say that 'the group is
>"formed"'.
>
>You mention that the group will (and need to) meet. So far the
>agenda for IETF47 (draft) does not indicate a timeslot for ROBHC.
>
>-Basavaraj
>
>>
>>Yes, the group will and need to meet in Adelaide (otherwise we could not
>>possible have a protocol as PROPOSED in December). However, the WG has not
>been
>>officially announced yet but we will make sure that the group is "formed"
>and a
>>meeting slot allocated
>>
>>Regards!!
>>/Lars-Erik
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Is the ROBHC WG/BOF planning on meeting at IETF47? If
>>so has there been a slot allocated for it?
>>
>>-Basavaraj
>>---
>>Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
>>Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/robhc/
>---
>Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
>Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/robhc/

---
Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/robhc/