Subject: [rohc] Closing sigcomp issues - Instalment 2

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EPL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:46:36 +0200

Dear all,

After closing most SigComp issues, as listed in Instalment 1, it is time
to address the ones still open. I will not focus on the technical content
of these open issues, but mainly on the status, as it looks from the 
discussions on the list.

The issues still open are:
  lejo-7
  lejo-8
  lejo-9
  lejo-10*
  rp-1
  rp-8
  cabo-11
  cabo-8
  cabo-6*
  cabo-15*
  cabo-16
  sugar-3
  sugar-6*

From what I have seen on the list, it should now be possible to close
some of these issues, since solutions have been proposed without
objections, or with rough consensus to go on with the proposed solution.
These issues are (also marked above):

lejo-10:
  
  Issue has been discussed and finally summarized by Hans in:
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg00450.html
  There have been no objections to this summary.

  Resolution proposal: Clarify sender behavior if S-bit is switched back
                       to zero. The text of Section 9.4.7 should be updated
                       based on the following text:
  
  "The sending endpoint is welcome to change its mind and switch the S-bit
  back to 0 in a later message. However, the receiving endpoint is under
  no obligation to use the original state_memory_size for the session; it
  may choose to allocate less memory to the session or possibly none at all.

  Note: The format of Figure 13 is 
  only for *local* presentation of parameters on the interface between 
  UDVM and state handler, NOT a format for transmission between two 
  endpoints."

cabo-6:

  Issue has been discussed on the list, and Richard has explained the
  purpose of the current proposal in the draft:
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg00443.html
  Answer - "Feature", stick to what is in -05a
  There have been no objections to this proposal.

  Resolution proposal: Resolution proposed in current editors' working
                       document. 

cab0-15:
 
  Issue has been discussed on the list, and there seems to be rough
  consensus to stick to what is currently in the draft:
  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg00461.html

  Resolution proposal: Resolution proposed in current editors' working
                       document. 

  "decompression_memory_size: 2048 octets
  state_memory_size: 0 octets
  cycles_per_bit: 16
  SigComp_version: 0
  locally available state: none"

sugar-6:
 
  Issue has been discussed on the list, and there seems to be rough
  consensus that this functionality can already be provided, based
  on current editors' document.

  Resolution proposal: No special action needed. Resolution provided
                       by current editors' working document. 

--------------------------------------
Lars-Erik Jonsson
IETF ROHC WG Chair
E-mail: [email-masked]
Phone: +46 920 20 21 07
Home: +46 920 999 57

My opinions are my personal opinions and should not be considered
as the opinions of my employer, if not explicitly stated. 

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc