Subject: [rohc] RFC4995 update posted

From: "Kristofer Sandlund" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:50:29 +0100

Hi all,

I have just submitted draft-sandlund-rohc-rfc4995bis-00 which is
intended
to obsolete RFC4995 by fixing one error in the spec and add
a small clarification to it. The error is what prompts us to want
to update the draft, while the other part is just a clarification.
Link to the draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sandlund-rohc-rfc4995bis-00.tx
t)

List of changes:
- In section 5.2.4.1, the definition of the Size and Code fields
  are erroneous compared to RFC3095, the problem is due to a merge
  of multiple ASCII graphics into a one picture and we forgot to
  update the text. The correct definition is that these fields
  should include the length of the CID fields (if any).
  Therefore the sentences defining the meaning of these two
  fields are updated.
  Thanks to Jani Juvan for locating this problem.

- In the uncompressed profile, it was not spelled out that one should
  use optimistic approach type of logic and repetition of IRs
  before receiving feedback. Therefore, we added a new section 5.4.3
  which lists these things.

- The doc now uses standard symbolic references as per RFC editor's
  guidelines insetad of the numeric references used in 4995

- Minor formatting changes (more or less spaces here and there) due
  to using a different source format than the original draft

Our wish is to publish this as a new RFC that obsoletes RFC4995.
In order to get that done quickly, it would probably be
useful to convert this into a WG draft, get a quick review and
pass it up to the IESG as soon as possible.
Please review this draft (I recommend doing an rfcdiff against
RFC4995). Let us know if there is anything else that could use updating
or polishing in RFC4995.

Rgds,
  Kristofer

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

---

From: Carl Knutsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:14:28 +0100

Kristofer, all,

I have checked the new document with rfcdiff and it looks fine. I agree
with Kristofer's suggestion to make it a WG item. If no one have any
objections, I will make it a WG item on Wednesday.

Thank you Kristofer for drafting the new document and Jani for finding
the feedback size issue.

Best regards,

/Carl Knutsson, ROHC WG chair