RE: [rohc] Liaison request from 3GPP2

Ghyslain, 

> Lars-Erik,
> 
>> Ghyslain, for alignment with the WG draft name, which will be:
>>    draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-profiles-00.txt,
>> please name the upcoming initial individual draft similarly:
>>    draft-pelletier-rohc-rfc3095bis-profiles-00.txt
> 
> I don't really agree with this, as the RoHCv2 profiles are
> not meant to replace the already existing profiles, but
> rather to create an updated variants without replacing the
> current profiles. In other words, new profile numbers should
> be issued by IANA. So I don't see the RoHCv2 profiles draft having
> the "bis" in its name.

There is no single meaning associated with the use of "bis". The
two new documents specify an updated version of the protocol
specified by 3095, therefore it can be called a bis to 3095. Of
course it will have to be allocated new profile numbers since it
is not identical to 3095, but that is irrelevant when it comes
to naming. 

For this working group, bis is a proper name for the work we
are now doing producing an updated version of our current
protocol(s). This work will thus be captured in three documents
with consistent names:
- draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-improvements
- draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework
- draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-profiles

/L-E

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