RE: [rohc] Small comment on draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-lla-impl-guide-01.txt

Hi Aniruddha,

In the interest of closing this discussion...

My previous mail was mainly "for the record" because this is what I think is the better solution, but I have no special interest into this question - so statu quo is fine for me - I was simply asked to comment on the document. Case closed.

However, I wonder how "normative" the implementer's guide really is (as well as how much "deployment" really weights) in such case, when a part of an RFC is known not to the be interoperable and when other standards (IS-835-C) will need to be amended in order to "validate" the fix. This seems possible either by including text from the implementer's guide or when the only alternative is to wait for the new RFC that corrects the problem - provided the profile number remains unchanged (which alternatives both make the document much less relevant). Just a thought about the argumentation in this discussion ; )

/Ghyslain

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aniruddha Kulkarni [mailto:aniruddha.kulkarni@effnet.com]
> Sent: den 1 juni 2005 16:40
> To: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
> Cc: Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB); rohc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rohc] Small comment on
> draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-lla-impl-guide-01.txt
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>     We do have complete implementation of LLA including the normative
> changes in implementor's guide. Probably there exists other 
> implementations
> or customer deployments.                                      
>             
>     The proposal has it's merits but I agree with Lars-Erik 
> that it is 
> good only
> for corner cases.                                 
>     So I prefer to maintain status quo, follow the 
> implementor's guide 
> as it is now.
> 
> Aniruddha Kulkarni
> Effnet AB
> 
> Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
> 
> >Ghyslain,
> >
> >I agree with your technical point, and if this had been suggested
> >a year ago, I had probably bought it without any concerns. 
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>Finally, and most important, this is the solution we came up
> >>>with as our official solution when the problem was observed
> >>>a year ago. Before we change that today, I think we should have
> >>>really good arguments.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>See above. Furthermore, my understanding of the document that 
> >>you are referring to (LLA implementer's guide) is that this 
> >>is an informational draft, nothing normative. Now that we've 
> >>submitted a new draft to make the corrections normative, this 
> >>is where we define the "official solution" from my perspective. 
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >3242 is non-interoperable with CSP, so we had to come up with a
> >solution. The agreed and official WG solution has been captured in
> >the LLA implementer's guide, in the same way as we have done for
> >RFC3095 with the ROHC implementer's guide. The LLA implementer's
> >guide is a draft, correct (a draft has no category), but it is the
> >most normative source that has been available. The solution has
> >been stable, and we have not identified more flaws, therefore it
> >is time to replace 3242 with a corrected RFC that incorporates
> >this fix.
> >
> >So, the main argument I see for keeping the current solution is
> >that it has been there for a year, and the actual performance
> >argument against it is rather small.
> >
> >The argument for doing a change is technical, we would not "waste"
> >two bytes in certain corner-cases. Also, if deployment of the
> >existing solution is insignificantly limited, it might be a good
> >idea to do this change.
> >
> >I do not see an obvious way out here, one may question the actual
> >problem with doing this change, but one may also question the
> >efficiency argument in favour of the change. However, right now
> >I would say we should do this change, if we do not get more input
> >from others, preferably from those who have implemented the RFC
> >with the existing fix.
> >
> >BR
> >/L-E
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Rohc mailing list
> >Rohc@ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> >  
> >
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc