Subject: RE: [rohc] Notes from the HCoIPsec Side-Session at IETF (03/20/06)

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:47:11 +0200

Emre,

> 2) Resolution of the HCoIPsec alternatives: There was
> consensus that the only difference between the two approaches
> is the way to identify uncompressed packets.  The first approach
> uses the "uncompressed profile" as the demultiplexing point, and
> the second approach uses the "next header" field.  Since the
> second approach provides a greater reduction in overhead,
> HCoIPsec efforts will proceed with the second approach, as
> detailed in the alternatives draft.  IANA will be requested
> to allocate one value from the next header field for "compressed
> headers". 

This looks fine, but from our point of view I assume the above
should not say "compressed headers" but "ROHC (packets)", right?

> 7) The following documents that are required to achieve HCoIPsec:   
>    a.  HCoIPsec Framework

As per previous discussions where we said this should not have to
be a standards track document since it would not really define 
any new protocol, did you discuss this or do you have a different
view if this after the Dallas side-session?

>    b.  Definition of a new next header field value (IANA
>        allocation) that indicates "compressed headers"

I guess the protocol value (for next header) should be "ROHC"

> 8) Discussion on unifying header compression algorithms:
> Perhaps define a new ROHC Profile, which will enable IPHC/(e)CRTP
> to be plugged into ROHC framework.  This way, only one value
> needs to be allocated from IANA.

Yes, this I believe is a good idea!!

> 10) The HCoIPsec framework is currently a chartered item
> within the ROHC WG.  

Well, actually it is not. We have a WG draft, but that does not
mean it is a chartered item. We will have to make a request to
make this a WG item, and there nail down which drafts to produce.

BR
/L-E

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

---

From: Jan Vilhuber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 13:19:53 -0700

> should not say "compressed headers" but "ROHC (packets)", right?

I would think not, as regular IPHC is still used as well. Whether the  
SA is using ROHC or IPHC is dependent on the SA, and does not need to  
be encoded in the packet.

> I guess the protocol value (for next header) should be "ROHC"

Nope. See above.

jan

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:58:41 +0300

On Apr 05 2006, at 23:19 , Jan Vilhuber wrote:

> I would think not, as regular IPHC is still used as well.

Jan,

it seems you are missing the context of this discussion: the idea is  
that IP-HC (2507) and CRTP/ECRTP (2508 etc.) become another (set of)  
profiles in the ROHC framework, so there is no need to switch  
frameworks, just to select the right profile within the framework.
Yes, this still needs to be written up.

Gruesse, Carsten