Subject: RE: [rohc] FN I-D WGLC proposed way forward

From: "Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:14:55 +0200

2. Add a note that the zero IP-ID is "observed" behavior, and that for header compression the choice of the behavior to assume is entirely up to the profile designer - i.e. it can handle non standard behaviour... but make it clear that Zero IP-IDs are actually illegal from the IETF's point of view. 

This is in an exemple in the FN, right? I don't think you need say more in the FN than what the exemple is trying to achieve, i.e. just have a small note that "the behavior(s) of a field can be whatever the profile designer chooses, and can be based on observations, and not only based on the protocol specifications". It should not be guideline or anything, only to satisfy the curious reader looking at the exemple.
 
For the TCP draft, I will motivate this decision a bit more clearly.
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:28:33 -0700

Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB) wrote:
> 2. Add a note that the zero IP-ID is "observed" behavior, and that for
> header compression the choice of the behavior to assume is entirely up
> to the profile designer - i.e. it can handle non standard behaviour...
> but make it clear that Zero IP-IDs are actually illegal from the IETF's
> point of view. 
>  
>  
> This is in an exemple in the FN, right? I don't think you need say more
> in the FN than what the exemple is trying to achieve, i.e. just have a
> small note that "the behavior(s) of a field can be whatever the profile
> designer chooses, and can be based on observations, and not only based
> on the protocol specifications". It should not be guideline or anything,
> only to satisfy the curious reader looking at the exemple.
>  

It would be more useful if examples did NOT violate IETF specs. There
could be other fields that are always zero in some cases or not in
others (RED flags) which might be a better example - in both places.

Joe