Subject: Re: [rohc] New ROHC Milesstones.

From: Zhu Lei <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:52:40 +0800

Hi all,
 
As a follower of ROHC working group, I just at least two submissions
regarding ROHC working group needed to be handled in any case.
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-rohc-over-802-02.txt
 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lei-rohc-sigcomp-static-dictionary-01.txt  
The authors may still think that document is a need to ROHC series or
necessary standard reference to Signaling Compressing. 
 
I used to expect considering a f2f meeting in 76th in this year since some
potential works for header compression could be helpful to 3GPP which
scheduled two RAN2/3 meetings in Sep., Oct. and Nov.. 
 
Therefore, I think the ROHC working:
 
1. Is the working group maintains ROHC series specifications and signaling
compressing protocols, and, some input of them still needs to be handled. (I
believe that my static dictionary extension is needed.)
 
2. The potential work is still pending in other SDOs. I am on the opposite
site of this work, and also of the intention to close working group in Sep.
2009. We have to wait for some conclusions for a while which could be half
year. Otherwise, the people don't follow ROHC WG would be very surprised
that rohc just be closed at this moment.

I, in some degree, underand ROHC wg enjoys very successful time in several
years, and hope you considering the thought of mine.

Best regards,
Lei
 
============================================================================
================

rohcers,

It is time to update the milestones for the rohc wg. I should have done
this a long time ago. I have sent my suggestion to our AD, but I want to
make sure that it represent the consensus of the group and not just my
opinions. So I need your feedback here. Please send in your comments
about the new milestones.

Below follows my suggestion:

The item I want to mark as "Done" is:

Dec 2006 - Revised ROHC IP/UDP/RTP profiles submitted to IESG for
           publication as Proposed Standard

Mar 2007 - IKE/IPsec extensions for HC-session Parameter Negotiation
           submitted to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard

Mar 2007 - Header Compression over IPsec (HCoIPsec) submitted to IESG
           for publication as Informational

The first item resulted in RFC 5225, the second and the third items
forms the ROHCoIPSec framework and are all drafts):

draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-11
draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09
draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipsec-05

All ROHCoIPSec have passed the AD evaluation and drafts are now in IETF
last-call.

I would like to add one item:

Sep 2009 - Revised ROHC framework submitted to IESG for publication as
           Proposed Standard

This is the new framework draft that is in WG last-call. It includes a
fix to the feedback format (to make piggybacked feedback possible) and
some editorial changes in the text.

I would like to remove two items.

Feb 2007 - ROHC encapsulation profile(s) for IPHC/CRTP/eCRTP submitted
           to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
Jan 2007 - RObust Header Compression Protocol Number Registration
           submitted to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard

This was added before I started as a chair and it is not completely
clear to me what the consensus is for this item. I can't really see what
these new legacy profiles solve that can't be solved by existing
profiles. I would like to have this discussion now.

The Protocol Number Registration item is not needed. The registration is
included in the ROHCoIPSec drafts.

I would like to see a change of date for the last item. From Jun 2007 to
Sep 2009. It is long overdue:

Jun 2007 - Recharter of WG to develop additional profiles if needed, or
           possible additional compression schemes. Consideration of
           concluding the working group.

Please send in your comments.

Best Regards,

/Carl Knutsson, ROHC WG Chair

---

From: Carl Knutsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:13:42 +0200

Hi Lei,

Thanks for you input on the milestones.

The document you list below are individual commits and not working group
documents. It is quite appropriate to discuss them here, but if you want
to make working group item out of them, you must build a strong case
motivated by technical arguments.

If you can build a strong case around these documents and gather enough
interest to add it as a work item, I will consider arranging a meeting
in Japan. Information about 3GPP meetings and discussions are not a
technical argument. I would expect an official liaison request from
3GPP, if they want us to start working on a new document.

Best Regards,

/Carl Knutsson

Zhu Lei wrote:
> I used to expect considering a f2f meeting in 76th in this year since
> some potential works for header compression could be helpful to 3GPP
> which scheduled two RAN2/3 meetings in Sep., Oct. and Nov..
>  
> 1. Is the working group maintains ROHC series specifications and
> signaling compressing protocols, and, some input of them still needs
> to be handled. (I believe that my static dictionary extension is needed.)
>  
> 2. The potential work is still pending in other SDOs. I am on the
> opposite site of this work, and also of the intention to close working
> group in Sep. 2009. We have to wait for some conclusions for a while
> which could be half year. Otherwise, the people don't follow ROHC WG
> would be very surprised that rohc just be closed at this moment.
> I, in some degree, underand ROHC wg enjoys very successful time in
> several years, and hope you considering the thought of mine.
>  
>  
> Best regards,
> Lei
>  
> ============================================================================================
>  
>  
>  
> rohcers,
>