Subject: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:50:02 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Protocol Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS
	Author(s)	: J. Ash, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt
	Pages		: 19
	Date		: 2005-9-27
	
VoIP typically uses the encapsulation voice/RTP/UDP/IP. When MPLS
   labels are added, this becomes voice/RTP/UDP/IP/MPLS-labels. For an
   MPLS VPN, the packet header is typically 48 bytes, while the voice
   payload is often no more than 30 bytes, for example. Header
   compression can significantly reduce the overhead through various
   compression mechanisms.  MPLS is used to route header-compressed (HC)
   packets over an MPLS LSP without compression/decompression cycles at
   each router.  Such an HC over MPLS capability increases the bandwidth
   efficiency as well as processing scalability of the maximum number of
   simultaneous compressed flows that use HC at each router.  MPLS
   pseudowires are used to transport the HC context and other control
   messages between the ingress and egress MPLS label switched router
   (LSR), and the pseudowires define one or more point-to-point
   instances corresponding to each HC session at the header
   decompressor.  Standard HC methods (e.g., ECRTP, ROHC, etc.) are
   re-used to determine the context.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:18:46 -0500

Colin,

Thanks for your comments.  Please see responses below.

Jerry 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:13 PM
> To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
> Cc: IETF AVT WG
> Subject: Re: [AVT] RE: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protocol-01.txt 
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> On 27 Sep 2005, at 21:39, Ash, Gerald R ((Jerry)), ALABS wrote:
> > Please review and comment on the updated draft "Protocol 
> > Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS"
> >
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-hc-over-mpls-protoco
l-01.txt).
> >
> > The updates are based primarily on comments from Stewart Bryant, see
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05722.html
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05721.html
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/current/msg05723.html
> >
> > The main changes include the following:
> >
> > 1. Section 4.1: Noted the need for IANA to allocate two Pseudowire
> > Interface Parameter Sub-TLV type values, one for IPCP and the
> > other for IPV6TP.

> You might want to talk to IANA now, and get provisional values  
> assigned to include into the document?

Yes, this would be a good idea if the registries existed.  The PWE3 IANA
draft
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-12.txt
is currently in IETF last call, so it can't be too far into the future.
The chairs of PWE3 (Stewart Bryant and Danny McPherson) have been
requested to add this request (two PW Interface Parameter Sub-TLV type
values for this draft) to their "temporary" assignments list and pass
them to IANA once the registries are established.

> > 2. Section 4.1: Clarified the encoding of the header compression
> > setup/parameter-negotiation TLVs identified in RFC 3251 and 
> > RFC 3544.
> > 3. Section 4.2: Noted the need for IANA to establish a Registry to
> > assign PW Control Octet values 10-15.
> > 4. Section 7: Text clarified to conform with RFC 2434 requirements
> > and specified the need for the two new interface parameter 
> > sub-TLVs.  Also specified the need for a Registry for PW Control
> > Octet values 10-15.

> I think the registry for PW Control Octet values 10-15 needs more  
> detail. Specifying the registry and allocation policy is a 
> start, but the draft must also define the information that should
> be provided when registering a new value (e.g. if you want new
> registrations to include a name for the Packet Type and a reference
> to the specification of that type, then this draft must state that).

Right, name and reference would be good to add (those would be necessary
for the expert review, anyway).  We'll add these to the next revision of
the draft.

> > Once again, please review and comment on the updated draft.

> An editorial issue: the RFC Editor will push back on drafts 
> with more than five authors (http://www.rfc-editor.org/ 
> policy.html#policy.authlist). You might wish to list a single editor  
> on the front page, with a contributors section later, to avoid delay  
> during the RFC approval stage.

OK, we'll fix in the next revision of the draft.