Subject: Re[2]: Comments/questions on "draft-ietf-ippcp-protocol-01.t

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:04:56 -0600

>>Points 4, 6 and 7 are good suggestions and we should incorporate them.
     
>>Cheers,
>>--Naganand
     
>>----------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>Naganand Doraswamy                              (978)916-1323 (O) 
>>Bay Architecture Lab                            (978)670-8153 
>>(Fax) 3 Federal St, Mail Stop BL3-04
>>Billerica, MA 01821

Issue #6 is the one that concerns me a lot.

>>6. In Section 3.3, we describe the CPI.  However, the text there is correct, 
>>but I feel it assumes that the reader is familiar with IPSec and can make 
>>the necessary inferences.  I would like to see more explicit text here to 
>>outline some basic concepts, such as (in analogy with IPSec): a) both 
>>parties participating can select a CPI value independently of each other, b) 
>>there is no relationships between the two separately chosen CPIs, c) the 
>>compressing system's IPComp header must use the CPI value chosen by the 
>>decompressing system, d) the receiving system uses the pair <CPI, 
>>destination address> to point to the correct compression algorithm 
>>characteristics, e) etc.

>>____________________________
>>Charles A Kunzinger ([email-masked])
>>TCP/IP Technology Management, JDGA/501, RTP
>>Phone: Tieline 8-444-4142 ,  External 1-919-254-4142
>>Fax: Tieline 8-444-6243,  External 1-919-254-6243 VM:  IBMUSM27(KUNZINGE)

I totally agree with Charles.  I had expressed a similar concern at the Munich 
IETF.  Someone reading the IPComp draft MUST not have to understand the plethora
of IPSec drafts.  There are just too damn many of them!

Is there going to be an updated IPComp draft that addresses this issue?

Thanks,

Sumit A. Vakil
Tunneling and Security
3Com

---

From: Avram Shacham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:34:19 +0200

At 05:04 PM 11/12/97 -0600, [email-masked] wrote:
<snip>
>Is there going to be an updated IPComp draft that addresses this issue?

Yes.

avram