Re: [rohc] Re: ROHC WGLC (NiTs): draft-ietf-rohc-tcp-field-behavior-03.txt

ACK: These changes seem to be good to me.

Gorry Fairhurst

West, Mark wrote:

> Hi Gorry,
> 
> Nothing *too* controversial here (I hope!)...
> 
> I've incorporated updates into the -04 draft and I think that I've
> captured all of these.  A couple of points, inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark.
> 
> 
> 
>>Nit: Page 4: Intro, para 3:
>>"A less stable but more detailed analysis is done in section 5..."
>>- Perhaps a poor choice of words: if the section is not stable, we should
>>not publish as an RFC :-)?
>>- Please could you suggest some clearer words to describes the constraints
>>in section 5.
> 
> 
> I have no idea why it says 'less stable', so I took that out :-)
> 
> 
>>Nit: Page 7: Source and Destination addresses
>>- Are we considering possible Tunnel encapsulations at this point?
>>- If so, is this referring to the inner-most IP header (directly preceding
>>the TCP header)?
>>
> 
> 
> Yes, we are considering tunnel encapsulations -- I've updated the text to
> allow for this (the issue of flow separation is something that is, in
> part, at the discretion of the compressor).
> 
> <
> 
>>Nit: Page 22: Section 5.2.1 para 7.
>>"It would also be desirable to.."
>>-> Is the WG confident enough to say:
>>"It is desirable to"
>>
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> 
>>NiT: Page 33: Section 6.3: para 1
>>(i) "not that onerous"
>>- This text is unclear, in terms of what?
>>- Do you mean there are fewer bytes?
>>i.e. overhead is less significant (i.e. than 10% of capacity for an MSS of
>>536B and less than  3% for 1460B)?
>>
> 
> 
> Yes, I mean that the percentage of header bytes in the entire packet is
> lower for a large packet.  I've tried to clarify that...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> Rohc@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> 
> 

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