Re: [rohc] Questions about the MIB!

Hi,

since Juergen is off for the next days I'll take the thread to handle the 
comments/thoughts.

Looking forward for a lot of comments!

Cheers
Martin

--On Montag, Februar 25, 2002 10:03:29 +0000 "West, Mark (ITN)" 
<mark.a.west@roke.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Hi ROHC-ers,
>
> If you haven't been put off by my use of 'MIB' in the subject line, then
> read on!
>
> Having just read through the draft MIB, a couple of questions have arisen
> which I think may benefit from a wider audience...
>
> Firstly, I'm curious to know how many fellow implementors have done
> anything with the packet-size / payload-size restrictions?  (I know we
> haven't ;-)
>
> Secondly, the more general issue is this: there is a quantity of
> information about contexts which is based on the profiles defined in
> RFC-3095.  (For example, referring to the modes as U, O and R and states
> as IR/FO/SO).  This makes absolute sense with regard to RFC 3095.  I am
> interested to know what anyone thinks about the impact of splitting 3095,
> however!  How much of the MIB can/should be based on specific profile
> details, rather than 'generic' framework?  (Clearly in the cases
> mentioned above, opaque numeric identifiers could be used) Anyway, it's a
> general issue that it would be nice to have some input on...
>
> On a related note, there are a number of configuration parameters which
> only really have 'per profile' significance (for example 'k_1' and
> 'n_1').  These parameters are specific to certain profiles .  'k and n'
> also make a useful example, in that k_1 and n_1 are likely to be chosen
> based on the link characteristics.  So, we have values that are
> per-profile and should be configurable (at least) per-interface.  (I
> suppose it makes sense, anyway, to know which profiles are supported on
> any given interface...)
>
> Where a context is using a particular profile, it is not clear to me
> whether or not it is desirable to be able to 'tweak' these values on a
> per-context basis.  Again, any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>
> --
> Mark A. West, Consultant Engineer
> Roke Manor Research Ltd., Romsey, Hants.  SO51 0ZN
> Phone +44 (0)1794 833311   Fax  +44 (0)1794 833433
>
> (Yes, I do know that my disclaimer is in an attachment.  And, no, I
> didn't ask for it to be that way)

Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories      Martin.Stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de             IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de

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