Subject: [AVT] Comments on draft-ash-avt-ecrtp-over-mpls-reqs-01.txt

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:34:18 +0100

Hi,

During the IETF meeting it was requested that we accept the requirements 
document as a AVT WG document. We have Allison's approval for taking 
this on within the WG, so unless someone raises very good reasons, this 
will become a WG document. To get started on the first version of the WG 
document I like to give the following comments.

1. I would like to documents title and filename to reflect what the 
document is for, namely requirements for header compression over MPLS. 
It is not specific to ECRTP, although it appears a good match for the 
requirements. It was unfortunate that the milestone specifies ECRTP, 
however please remember to be a bit broader in the thinking. Thus I 
would suggest that a new title: "Requirements for header compression 
over MPLS". And as filename I would suggest 
draft-ietf-avt-hc-mpls-req-00.txt for the first version.

2. Two to get this document published as an informational document the 
editors would need to ensure that all ID nits are meet. This includes 
things like page breaks at the right places, etc.

3. To make the document a bit more agnostic to the actual header 
compression standard used, I would suggest that one replaces most 
occurrences in the abstract, and introduction  of ECRTP with HC (Header 
Compression).

4. I would also like to warn about using RFC 2119 words as they are in a 
requirements document, it may make more sense to define them as it is 
desired.

5. I would also suggest that one tries to improve the motivation why 
ECRTP is in fact the right header compression protocol to use. To make 
this clear I would recommend a section describing the properties of MPLS 
label switched path and what requirements that places on the header 
compression algorithm. Also the actual requirements on the signalling 
part needs to be considered.

6. It would also be desirable if one could move some of the solution 
conclusions in chapter 3 to its own chapter. Chapter 3 will be clearer 
if one concentrates on stating goals and requirements with their 
motivation.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:15:49 +0100

Magnus and others,

This captures very well the concerns I expressed on the AVT session,
I just want to stress point 5 a little bit. A brief summary of how
all candidate schemes (CRTP, eCRTP and ROHC) should be included,
explaining how each scheme would map to the needs, as well as what
would have to be added to make each scheme applicable.

/L-E

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf 
> Of Magnus
> Westerlund (KI/EAB)
> Sent: den 8 mars 2004 14:34
> To: IETF AVT WG
> Subject: [AVT] Comments on draft-ash-avt-ecrtp-over-mpls-reqs-01.txt
> 
> 
> Hi,
>