Subject: [rohc] Context replication as a separate document?

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:46:49 +0200

ROHCers,

We have had some discussions around the context replication
draft submitted by Ghyslain a few weeks ago. As I think it
would be useful to get that draft updated before Vienna to
reflect the outcome of these discussions, I would like to
know your opinions on keeping this material in a separate
document instead of in ROHC TCP itself. If so, we should
make it a new WG document. 

Please let us know your opinions not later than Monday, 16th.

Thanks!
/L-E

--------------------------------------
Lars-Erik Jonsson
IETF ROHC WG Chair
E-mail: [email-masked]
Phone: +46 920 20 21 07
Home: +46 920 999 57

My opinions are my personal opinions and should not be considered
as the opinions of my employer, if not explicitly stated. 
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: "Price, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:08:55 +0100

Hi,

In general, I think that a good overall structure for ROHC-TCP
would be the following:

* 1 draft containing the TCP-specific portion of the profile.

* 1 or more drafts containing protocol-independent mechanisms,
  which we might want to reuse for different ROHC profiles.

The packet formats for context replication are always specific
to a particular profile, so I don't see any value in publishing
them separately from the remainder of the packet formats. In fact,
it will be a lot simpler to support context replication by
modifying the existing CO packets rather than to define a whole
new set of packet formats from scratch.

Regarding the state machine portion of the draft, the compressor
and decompressor logic is geared towards the B-mode state machine
that we use for ROHC-TCP. If we want to offer context replication
for another ROHC profile that uses B-mode then we can reuse this
logic without modifications. However, if we need context replication
for profiles with other modes then we'll need to rewrite the logic
to take the different state transitions and feedback behaviour into
account.

Do we have any plans to use the B-mode state machine for profiles
other than ROHC-TCP? If so, then it's worth keeping the context
replication material in a separate draft. If not, then it would be
better to keep it together with the other TCP-specific material.

Regards,

Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:47 AM
> To: Rohc (E-mail)
> Subject: [rohc] Context replication as a separate document?
> 
> 
> ROHCers,
>

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:31:46 +0200

>   which we might want to reuse for different ROHC profiles.

Yes, and I guess context replication is a mechanism that might
be reused in the future. That is why I personally believe it
makes sense to keep it separate. Especially the background and 
analysis is useful not to repeat in new documents.
 
> them separately from the remainder of the packet formats. 

I totally agree with you that they are profile specific, but I
also think it is useful with examples in this draft (currently
the packet formats are there for that purpose and are only
included as an appendix).

BR
/L-E

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:40:41 +0200

Ghyslain,

> > But the actual, normative IR-REPLICATE packet formats would go in
> > the ROHC-TCP draft instead?
> 
> Yes, that's my opinion. As L.-E pointed out, the appendix in 
> the ROHC-CR draft was only to illustrate a possibility and
> generate a discussion. It was meant to be removed from that
> draft at a later stage and the formats resulting from the
> discussion to be included in the relevant document (e.g.
> ROHC-TCP draft).

I think there should be examples in the generic replication draft,
but only as examples. So, keep them in the appendix, for now they
can stay as they are and later we can maybe reduce them to one
example.

BR
/L-E