RE: [robhc] Meeting at IETF47

[khiem.le@nokia.com]

Mikael,

The latest charter states that "ROHC may develop multiple compression
schemes, for example, some that
are particularly suited to specific link layer technologies." I gather it
means we are not constrained to a "one size fits all" approach. That
addresses my concern, because I feel that to meet the stringent performance
requirements and harsh environment of cellular links, we need to be able to
consider deeply optimized solutions, tailored to the technology (error
distribution, feedback channel or not, etc.). Not to mention future
technologies, which may differ widely from existing ones. Of course, we
would like to achieve maximum commonality among the solutions, but at this
stage, it is premature to prejudge about the outcome and result.

Khiem 

-----Original Message-----
From: EXT Mikael Degermark [mailto:micke@CS.Arizona.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 6:53 PM
To: khiem.le@nokia.com
Cc: lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com;
robhc@cdt.luth.se; micke@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
Subject: RE: [robhc] Meeting at IETF47


Khiem,

It is important to have a good charter. One aspect of the charter is that it
outlines
what the rest of the IETF expects from us. So it is not entriely up to the
WG 
(or the WG chair) what goes into the charter, that is something that the
IESG
ultimately decides. I don't  have a problem with the current charter, if you
do
after reading this letter, please let me know. 

When it comes to unidirectionality, there was a pretty strong sentiment at
the
BOF that it would be preferable to have a scheme that can compress over
unidirectional 
links. A number of important people expressed this opinion, and that is why
that
sentence is in the charter. I hope and also believe that it is possible to
find a 
solution that works well over unidirectional links but possibly can provide
improved
performance when there is a feedback channel (i.e., link is bidirectional).

I would think that it is in the requirements document that it is most
important to
have input from the cellular industry. I will publish a first draft of the
requirements
document in a couple of days, and do invite comments on that document.
Please 
contribute. The basis of that document will be the 3GPP requirements.

If you feel that other standardization bodies than 3GPP should participate,
please
ask appropriate people in those bodies to contact me (or Carsten Bormann,
who the IESG has asked to be co-chair). They are welcome. 

Mikael Degermark

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

>