[rohc] Updating draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework

ROHCers,

I'm in the process of updating the ROHC Framework draft, with the
purpose of finalizing this document and making it ready for WGLC.
We will probably keep the document within the WG at least until
we feel comfortable with it in relation to the ROHCv2 profiles,
but we should try to complete the formalities and reviews so that
we can consider it "ready for submission to the IESG".

The -01 revision included a proposed optional ROHC channel parameter
with the purpose of communicating ooo depth. 

> MAX_R_DEPTH: Nonnegative integer. Maximum reordering depth expected
>    between the compressor and the decompressor, when the link ´
>    supporting the RoHC channel cannot guarantee in-order delivery. If
>    MAX_R_DEPTH is negotiated to be 0, the channel is assumed not to
>    deliver packets to the decompressor in an order that differs for
>    the order the compressor sent them, per compressed flow (CID).
>    This parameter is optional.

This parameter has been questioned both because it makes an addition
to the ROHC Framework, which we have said we will keep unchanged, and
because it is unclear how the parameter can really be useful. Since it
is not supposed to *negotiate* anything between compressor and
decompressor, it seems to be more like the implementation parameters
RFC 3095 defines for the compressor in its section 6.3.1. It is thus
suggested not to keep this proposed channel parameter in the Framework
draft for rev -02.

However, in the same way as we have feedback options for LOSS and
JITTER, it might be a good idea to discuss whether something similar
should be added for observed reordering. But this is then a question
for the profiles draft...

Apart from the MAX_R_DEPTH option, I am not aware of any issues
raised regarding the Framework draft, so now is time to speak up
if you have any concerns.

Rgds,
/L-E

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