Subject: Re:[rohc] 3GPP2's need vs IETF responsibilities

From: "Mr. Leo Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:44:15 -0600

All,

First, I would like to impart and reiterate that all the v2 work was and
still appreciated.

Secondly, it is my understanding that this draft is solely for the purpose
of solving the re-ordering issue and in addition, attempts to identify a
transition from 3095. Why is this a problem?

It appears that we have lost site of the charter. I've provided a link:
http://ietf.org/html.charters/rohc-charter.html

Here is a few points I would like to point out:  

(1) The working group maintains 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. 
 
(2) to carry out a re-work of the ROHC framework and profiles
specifications, hereafter referred to as the ROHCv2 project..
 
(3) to update and correct the original profile specifications through
publication of the "Corrections and Clarifications to RFC 3095"- 

document.

We must not lose site of the aforementioned and work together through open
dialog and technical discussion. I'm supporting #2

2) Take the work started in draft-kapoor-rohc-profiles-reordering-01.txt,
and produce an AD Shepherded Informational document. [This approach has the
advantage that it would help get at some level of IETF/WG review to "sanity
check" that what is being proposed is compatible with the ongoing v2 profile
work. But discussions with the chair/AD suggested that we would have
difficulty getting support for this route, as the resultant document might
appear to have been "blessed" by the IETF too much.]

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