Subject: [rohc] RFC4996bis

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:32:54 -0400

As you may be aware, the authors of RFC 4996 have been working
on an update that's currently held up in the IESG Review based
on the following DISCUSS comment from Russ:

"""
  The issue below is the same as the one raised in the Gen-ART Review
  by Joel Halpern on 16-July-2012.

  Section 5.2.2.2 on negative acknowledgments includes the following:
  >
  > ... unless it has confidence that information sent after the packet
  > being acknowledged already provides a suitable response ...
  >
  This deals with a specific response to the NACK, it is unclear what
  constitutes confidence.  Other places in this document that refer to
  gaining confidence provide specific descriptions of how it is gained.
  The primary methods for gaining confidence are receiving acks or
  sufficient transmissions.  If all that is meant here is sufficient
  transmissions, please say so.
"""

There seems to be disagreement about whether additional text
would be useful in this regard.

We'd like to hear from people on this ROHC mailing list who
either have implemented or might implement this specification
as to whether or not more clarity is needed here, or if it's
really not useful or a good idea to add such text.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems