Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-09.txt - ROHC

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 10 February 2021 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2673A0F39 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:24:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JzgBpIkMYiBI for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16EFA3A0F2E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DbQ8P55Hnz105H; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:24:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <C37C52A5-76D1-4E6A-A288-567AE145EBE1@tzi.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:24:53 +0100
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 634667093.224661-d86aa48e7a318cbf029da5ccce8a7254
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <89AE7A55-006B-4CD0-86E0-D641FB69B352@tzi.org>
References: <160634937123.31668.16222629354118891810@ietfa.amsl.com> <014545D8-D549-4FFF-AF44-64975BA5DB09@strayalpha.com> <31945817-EA0C-416D-B002-EF7A2477654A@tzi.org> <e39f6bd8-7456-617a-f763-515d1ad53c12@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <9089311D-3EE3-4127-9FCF-124B78692900@strayalpha.com> <C37C52A5-76D1-4E6A-A288-567AE145EBE1@tzi.org>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/icBYF-AjSe2VZTF9Pyg0rRzBtcg>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-09.txt - ROHC
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:24:57 -0000

On 2021-02-10, at 17:13, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> ROHCv2

Even with ROHCv1, Protocol/Next Header is part of the static chain, so RFC 4019 (profiles 0x0007/0x0008) should apply to UDP-with-options.  I just can’t remember what the opaque comments pointing to RFC 3095 Section 5.7.7.8 mean (this was before we had a formal notation)…

Something for the ROHC mailing list, I think.

Grüße, Carsten