Re: [rohc] New ROHC Milesstones.

[Carl Knutsson <[e-mail]>]

Magnus, others,

Magnus, thanks for joining the discussion. I agree with Magnus on all
accounts.

Even if it seems like we will be closing down soon, I want the group to
focus on the last call of drafts draft-ietf-rohc-rfc4995bis-01.txt

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rohc-rfc4995bis-01

Please send in your comments.

Thanks,

/Calle

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As the responsible AD I will give my view on the things that has been
> brought up and where there are discussion.
> 
> Regarding the milestone:
> Feb 2007 - ROHC encapsulation profile(s) for IPHC/CRTP/eCRTP submitted
> to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
> 
> This work was chartered on the 30th of August 2006. The only draft to
> fulfill the WG item ever submitted was
> draft-bormann-rohc-avt-crtp-profile-00. It was submitted in March 2007.
> Since then there has been zero progress on this. This makes it clear
> that there are no energy nor interest for this WG item. That is why I
> will not hesitate a single second to kill that WG item.
> 
> When it comes to the two new item brought up as potential WG items I
> have the following comments:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-rohc-over-802-02
> This can be done as AD sponsored easily. The goal after all was that the
> adaptation needed so that ROHC can be used for a specific link layer is
> primarily intended to be done by the people that have the link layer
> knowledge. This doesn't need to happen in the ROHC WG. So AD sponsored
> is one way to get such a specification published. Another could be to do
> it in IEEE. I don't have any strong views on this.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lei-rohc-sigcomp-static-dictionary-01.txt
> I haven't seen a single comment from the WG regarding this individual
> draft. I do value the WGs input into if this seems to a good idea.
> 
> But frankly, the ROHC WG seems to have very little energy left. Based on
> the observed progress the last two years I think it is definitely time
> to close down this WG and declare success. The WG has produced a number
> of specification of good quality. Closing the WG does not prevent future
> work on the ROHC specifications or extensions. Simply that the way to
> accomplish these are different.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Magnus
> 
> 
> Carl Knutsson skrev:
>> rohcers,
>>
>> It is time to update the milestones for the rohc wg. I should have done
>> this a long time ago. I have sent my suggestion to our AD, but I want to
>> make sure that it represent the consensus of the group and not just my
>> opinions. So I need your feedback here. Please send in your comments
>> about the new milestones.
>>
>> Below follows my suggestion:
>>
>> The item I want to mark as "Done" is:
>>
>> Dec 2006 - Revised ROHC IP/UDP/RTP profiles submitted to IESG for
>>            publication as Proposed Standard
>>
>> Mar 2007 - IKE/IPsec extensions for HC-session Parameter Negotiation
>>            submitted to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
>>
>> Mar 2007 - Header Compression over IPsec (HCoIPsec) submitted to IESG
>>            for publication as Informational
>>
>> The first item resulted in RFC 5225, the second and the third items
>> forms the ROHCoIPSec framework and are all drafts):
>>
>> draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-11
>> draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09
>> draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipsec-05
>>
>> All ROHCoIPSec have passed the AD evaluation and drafts are now in IETF
>> last-call.
>>
>> I would like to add one item:
>>
>> Sep 2009 - Revised ROHC framework submitted to IESG for publication as
>>            Proposed Standard
>>
>> This is the new framework draft that is in WG last-call. It includes a
>> fix to the feedback format (to make piggybacked feedback possible) and
>> some editorial changes in the text.
>>
>> I would like to remove two items.
>>
>> Feb 2007 - ROHC encapsulation profile(s) for IPHC/CRTP/eCRTP submitted
>>            to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
>> Jan 2007 - RObust Header Compression Protocol Number Registration
>>            submitted to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
>>
>> This was added before I started as a chair and it is not completely
>> clear to me what the consensus is for this item. I can't really see what
>> these new legacy profiles solve that can't be solved by existing
>> profiles. I would like to have this discussion now.
>>
>> The Protocol Number Registration item is not needed. The registration is
>> included in the ROHCoIPSec drafts.
>>
>> I would like to see a change of date for the last item. From Jun 2007 to
>> Sep 2009. It is long overdue:
>>
>> Jun 2007 - Recharter of WG to develop additional profiles if needed, or
>>            possible additional compression schemes. Consideration of
>>            concluding the working group.
>>
>> Please send in your comments.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> /Carl Knutsson, ROHC WG Chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rohc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
>>
> 
>