Re: [rohc] Liaison towards 3GPP

[Krister Svanbro <krister.svanbro@lu.erisoft.se>]

Hello Carsten and all other ROHCers, 

Regarding the requested input from 3GPP about header stripping.
My view is that 3GPP desires to optimize the mass-market VoIP service
as much as possible. Hence, every bit and byte counts.
The gain in bandwidth should however be compared to the eventual 
loss in functionality.

The discussion about header stripping has however first taken off
from ETSI SMG2 which works on standards for EDGE. As far as I
know, there is now much indicating that there may very well be
header stripping for an optmized voice service in EDGE.
Nothing is decideded to my knowledge. As was pointed out 
in Adelaide, we don't have a Liaison officier towards ETSI yet.
The need of such a person/contact is in my view large.

I think that the main reason for the different stand points
in the issue of transparency between (as Carsten called it) 3GPP[n]s and 
IETF is mainly twofold. There is of course a cultural difference but
also 
a lack of understanding. Therefore I really like the idea of creating a 
informational document about transparency and header compression. In
that 
document I think it is our responsibility to clearly point out why 
transparency is desired and header field violation a bad thing.
The doc should clearly state all issues reagrding transparency,
including 
those we find obvious. Impacts of non-transparency  from network and 
applications point of view should be examplified. In short, 
the doc. should tell what you loose without a transparent solution.
If other bodies still go for non-transparent solutions after recieving
this information, we have at least done our part.

The window for this kind of info is however closing. We have to move
fast.
I don't know about any hard dealines at current date but would assume 
we only have a couple of months. I'll try to find a more accurate target
date... What would be the best (fastest) way to do this doc? I can
volunteer to 
do the editorial-and-present-to-3GPP thing if I recieve material from
the wg...


/ Krister



"Dr. Carsten Bormann" wrote:
> 
> > And then we are once again outside the scope of this WG and what should be
> > discussed on this list.....
> 
> Building mechanisms for "header stripping" (whatever that may mean) clearly
> is outside the scope of the WG.
> 
> Discussing them may actually not be.  Remember that our charter says:
> 
> "The working group shall maintain connections with other standardization
> organizations developing cellular technology for IP, such as 3GPP and
> 3GPP-2, to ensure that its output fulfills their requirements and will be
> put to good use."
> 
> For me, this means we have to understand how the 3GPP[n]s use ROHC, in
> particular where they perceive alternatives and, in case we don't agree with
> them, educate them about our view.  To do the latter, we probably need to
> develop a WG view in the first place -- this may go as far as going back and
> asking the IESG to put an informational document about the perils of
> non-transparent header munging into our charter.
> 
> All this only applies IF header stripping is still on the plate of the
> 3GPP[n]s.
> I would expect our liaison Krister to come back from Seoul with some input
> on this from 3GPP.
> Anybody know about the 3GPP-2 side?
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten
> 
> ---
> Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
> Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/rohc/