Subject: [rohc] More comments on <draft-ietf-rohc-ip-only-ip-01.txt>

From: Ghyslain Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:27:16 +0200

Lars-Erik,

I would like to make a suggestion regarding section 3.1 of
<draft-ietf-rohc-ip-only-ip-01.txt>.

I would like to see this section 3.1 broken in two - one for each
difference of the IP-only profile from the UDP profile, i.e. 

- one for the static chain termination (3.1); and 
- one for the handling of multiple IP headers (3.2).

While I think that the termination of the static chain is
straighforward, it is however strictly related to the compression of
only IP headers. Thus it shouldn't be blended together with the
discussion regarding the handling of multiple levels of IP headers.

I also think that a clearer explanation regarding the limitations of the
compression profiles in RFC-3095 for multiple levels of IP headers
(where the limitations come from and their consequences) would be
useful. Specifically, the second paragraph of the current section 3.1
only states a limitation and moves on to (somewhat unclearly) naming an
alternative for a potential solution that is only valid for the IP-only
profile - that is leaving additional headers uncompressed by terminating
compression after the section IP header. However, this limitation is
something that is not specific to the IP-only profile, and should be
elaborated more clearly in its own subsection.

This separation would also be useful for other drafts (e.g. profiles for
UDP-Lite and TCP) if need is to refer to the part of IP-only profile
explaining these limitations with arbitrary levels of IP headers, if
these other profiles are to handle this as well.

Regards,

/Ghyslain

Ghyslain Pelletier
Wireless IP Optimizations
AWARE - Advanced Wireless Algorithm Research
Ericsson Research, Corporate Unit
Ericsson AB
Luleå, Sweden
Phone : +46 (0) 920 20 24 32 
Mobile: +46 (0) 70 609 27 73
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:45:23 +0200

Ghyslain,

> - one for the handling of multiple IP headers (3.2).

This is probably a good idea!

> I also think that a clearer explanation regarding the 
> limitations of the compression profiles in RFC-3095 for
> multiple levels of IP headers (where the limitations come
> from and their consequences) would be useful. Specifically,
> the second paragraph of the current section 3.1 only states
> a limitation and moves on to (somewhat unclearly) naming an
> alternative for a potential solution that is only valid for 
> the IP-only profile - that is leaving additional headers
> uncompressed by terminating compression after the section
> IP header. 

Yes, the current text is rather short and it can for sure be
enhanced to become clearer and more informative.

> This separation would also be useful for other drafts (e.g. 
> profiles for UDP-Lite and TCP) if need is to refer to the
> part of IP-only profile explaining these limitations with
> arbitrary levels of IP headers, if these other profiles are
> to handle this as well.

That is a also good point.

I'll try to generate an update of the draft within a few weeks.

Cheers,
/L-E