Re: [rohc] New ROHC Milesstones.

> As I pointed out, there *is* no technical argument to be made for  
> using legacy standards.

I think the intent here was to mean "use case where there is a need for such a 
technical solution" ... correct me if I am wrong.

I.e. it is not clear to me that "ease of deployment" is synonym with "use-case 
for such deployment". Typically, for the same reasons that this WG created the 
existing profiles, legacy header compression algorithms would not be deployed 
where ROHC is expected to be deployed. If the argument is to have legacy header 
compression being deployed elsewhere, than there is no need to wrap those 
inside ROHC.

Honestly, from personal standpoint, I must admit I am not so interested in 
entertaining this discussion once more, or to keep this WG alive on artificial 
life-support ...

Cheers,

///Ghyslain

Quoting Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>:

> On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:08, Carl Knutsson [without WG chair hat] wrote:
> 
> > I am having a hard time seeing any technical
> > argument that would motivate these new profiles.
> 
> As I pointed out, there *is* no technical argument to be made for  
> using legacy standards.
> 
> Unless you consider ease of deployment, availability of debugged  
> implementations etc. a technical argument.
> 
> In the absence of a general solution to bridge legacy compression into  
> ROHC, every HC-over-X document that is trying to get some real-world  
> applicability has to provide the solution on its own.  Just like RFC  
> 4901 did.
> 
> The next one in line is
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-rohc-over-802
> 
> I can certainly put in a legacy bridge there.  I'd rather use the one  
> described in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-rohc-avt-crtp-profile-00
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> Rohc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> 