Subject: [rohc] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ertekin-rqts-hcoipsec-01.txt

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:34:27 +0200

I've now quickly read the new draft, and it has been significantly
improved. However, I'd like to share some of my observations:

* How much work would be required to incorporate HC negotiation
  into IKE? I notice the example of what would be negotiated for
  ROHC, and there is at least one important parameter missing,
  the "PROFILES" set supported.

* To allow packets with either compressed or uncompressed
  headers to traverse a single SA, would the ROHC uncompressed
  profile not do the job there? Then you can avoid unnecessary
  multiplexing overhead from being added to all packets.

* In 5.2.3, it should be mentioned that ROHC clearly does not 
  need a packet type identification mechanism.

* In chapter 6, candidate schemes are listed. It should be noted
  that the reordering tolerance of eCRTP has been shown to be
  questionable, see e.g.:
  http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1617/2004/286/LTU-EX-04286-SE.pdf

* From 5.2, to me it looks like a) will be covered by a general
  effort to do an enhanced ROHC that e.g. addresses reordering.
  However, b) and c) would require a new work item to be started
  for "HC over IPsec SA". 

Rgds,
/L-E

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
> Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
> 	Title		: Integration of Header Compression over IPsec 
> 			  Security Associations
> 	Author(s)	: E. Ertekin, et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-ertekin-rqts-hcoipsec-01.txt
> 	Pages		: 15
> 	Date		: 2005-5-27

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