Subject: [rohc] WG last-call of TCP header compression

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:05:05 +0200

ROHCers, TPCMers,

the authors believe that the TCP header compression spec (which needs
to be read with the attendant formal notation document) is complete.
The ROHC chairs are not aware of any outstanding issues either.
Therefore, we are now last-calling:

        	   draft-ietf-rohc-tcp-10.txt
        	   draft-ietf-rohc-formal-notation-09.txt
                 (for publication as Proposed Standard)

This will be the usual two-week WG last-call as suggested in RFC2418,
so please direct last-call comments to the ROHC mailing list
[email-masked] before Tue, 2005-08-02, 12:00 UTC.

TCPMers:

The ROHC working group operates its last-call process on the basis of

	   Committed Document Reviewers (CDRs),

who commit to a full review of a document (in return for being cited
as an official CDR in the acknowledgement section of the RFC).  We are
currently short of CDRs for the TCP header compression spec, so we are
looking for *you*, i.e. people who are interested in making sure the
next TCP header compression spec works as well as RFC1144 did in its
time and RFC2507 does today (or who at least don't want to see their
TCP packets mangled by random compressing hops in the path...).
Please respond to Lars-Erik and me if you are interested.

There will be bonus points for comments/reviews received by Sunday,
2005-07-31, as Monday 2005-08-01 is the day the ROHC WG is scheduled
to meet (as of today -- note that this might change).

Gruesse, Carsten

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

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:51:43 -0700

Gruesse and Carsten,

Two weeks to comment on 100+ pages of spec - 60 pages of which requires
the additional review of a separate, 50+ page notation description doc,
is not likely to result in useful comment.

That, BTW, doesn't include the fact that this is during the ID blackout
period, or as it is known, the "read all the IDs that are blasted out
before cutoff before the IETF where they will be discussed" period.

Is there any chance that:

	a) you can provide a little more time? (e.g., more than 2 weeks)

	b) you can shift it so it doesn't overlap with the run-up to the
	   IETF?

and, perhaps:

	c) there is some reason to believe that there can be anything
	"robust" about a system based on a spec that takes over
	150 pages to explain? (only half-kidding ;-)

Joe

Carsten Bormann wrote:
> tcpm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm