Subject: [rohc] Second WG last-call for the RFC 3095 Implementer's Guide

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:04:11 +0100

ROHCers,

After updating the draft to address the minor comments
received during the WGLC, and including 2119 terminology
where appropriate, we are now issuing a second working
group last-call on the following document:

            draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-impl-guide-18.txt
                 (for publication as Proposed Standard)

This will be the usual two-week WG last-call as suggested in
RFC2418. Please direct last-call comments to the ROHC mailing
list [email-masked] before Wed, 2006-02-22, 18:00 UTC.

Rgds,
/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: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:45:13 +0100

Folks,

The WGLC has ended without no comments on the list. However,
there have been some comments received off-list, and I will
summarize these on a high level:

1)Some implementers have expressed concerns about submitting
  this document for publication right now. The basis for these
  concerns is potential issues that have been identified but
  not yet fully evaluated. We should expect to get more
  concrete input on this.

2)The fact that this document is supposed to update RFC 3095
  has triggered some general comments like:
   - Should we consider a more proper title?
   - Is the structure proper for an updating standards track
     RFC?
   - Has it been carefully reviewed with PS status in mind?

These concerns makes me think we should give this some more
time. For 1), giving this more time is all we have to do, if
we do not get more input then it is fine. However, on 2) I
believe we should think some more on these issues, and maybe
we find out that there are things that should be restructured
to make this a better updating document for 3095. 

Conclusion, we will not submit this document for publication
in its current shape, at least not yet.

Comments are of course welcome!

/L-E