Subject: [rohc] Second WG last-call on ROHC TCP and ROHC Formal Notation

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:37:41 +0200

ROHCers, 

The first WG last-call on these documents ended on August 26, 2005.
There were several comments and questions received, and although
not very technically complex, these comments led to significant
reformulations of both the Formal Notation and the TCP compression
scheme itself. This work has been given time to mature, and now we
believe these drafts are ready for publication. Therefore, we are
now last-calling:
 
        draft-ietf-rohc-tcp-13.txt
        draft-ietf-rohc-formal-notation-11.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 Mon, 2006-10-23, 18:00 UTC.

/L-E

--------------------------------------
Lars-Erik Jonsson
IETF ROHC WG Chair
E-mail: [email-masked]
Phone: +46 8 404 29 61

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: "Jin, Haipeng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:01:55 -0700

Hi, All,

A couple of small comments on ROHC FN:

1. Page 14, paragraph 6, change "SeeSection" to "See Section"

2. Page 19, integer operators, "#x returns the smallest integer k where
x < 2^k" but what if the integer is a negative integer? If we are only
expecting this operation to be used for unsigned integer, then it needs
to be clarified.

Thanks,
Haipeng

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) [mailto:[email-masked]]

Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [rohc] Second WG last-call on ROHC TCP and ROHC Formal Notation

ROHCers, 

 

/L-E

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:37:32 +0200

I've identified a typo that has propagated through the whole set
of feedback options in ROHC-TCP, in the REJECT option, the 
MSN-NOT-VALID option, the MSN option, and the CONTEXT_MEMORY
Feedback Option.

These four sections all end with a sentence "..., otherwise the
decompressor MUST discard the entire feedback element."

In this sentence, the word "decompressor" is obviously incorrect.
It is of course supposed to say "compressor", as it is the 
compressor that is the receiver of feedback.

/L-E

----Original Message----
From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: den 9 oktober 2006 12:38
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [rohc] Second WG last-call on ROHC TCP and ROHC
Formal Notation

> believe these drafts are ready for publication. Therefore, we are now
> last-calling: 
>