[rohc] RFC4996bis
Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Sun, 19 August 2012 03:33 UTC
Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F1F21F8468 for <rohc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sLQ2ucYm6fqD for <rohc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omr7.networksolutionsemail.com (omr7.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216CF21F845C for <rohc@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cm-omr5 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr7.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7J3X1H1019834 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:33:01 -0400
Authentication-Results: cm-omr5 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN)
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from [69.81.143.209] ([69.81.143.209:38643] helo=[192.168.1.115]) by cm-omr5 (envelope-from <wes@mti-systems.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id F3/86-08981-D6E50305; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:33:01 -0400
Message-ID: <50305E66.5000307@mti-systems.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:32:54 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rohc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [rohc] RFC4996bis
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:33:08 -0000
As you may be aware, the authors of RFC 4996 have been working on an update that's currently held up in the IESG Review based on the following DISCUSS comment from Russ: """ The issue below is the same as the one raised in the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 16-July-2012. Section 5.2.2.2 on negative acknowledgments includes the following: > > ... unless it has confidence that information sent after the packet > being acknowledged already provides a suitable response ... > This deals with a specific response to the NACK, it is unclear what constitutes confidence. Other places in this document that refer to gaining confidence provide specific descriptions of how it is gained. The primary methods for gaining confidence are receiving acks or sufficient transmissions. If all that is meant here is sufficient transmissions, please say so. """ There seems to be disagreement about whether additional text would be useful in this regard. We'd like to hear from people on this ROHC mailing list who either have implemented or might implement this specification as to whether or not more clarity is needed here, or if it's really not useful or a good idea to add such text. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems
- [rohc] RFC4996bis Wesley Eddy
- Re: [rohc] RFC4996bis Wesley Eddy