Subject: [rohc] Questions about the MIB!

From: "West, Mark (ITN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:03:29 +0000

Hi ROHC-ers,

If you haven't been put off by my use of 'MIB' in the subject line, then 
read on!

Having just read through the draft MIB, a couple of questions have 
arisen which I think may benefit from a wider audience...

Firstly, I'm curious to know how many fellow implementors have done 
anything with the packet-size / payload-size restrictions?  (I know we 
haven't ;-)

Secondly, the more general issue is this: there is a quantity of 
information about contexts which is based on the profiles defined in 
RFC-3095.  (For example, referring to the modes as U, O and R and states 
as IR/FO/SO).  This makes absolute sense with regard to RFC 3095.  I am 
interested to know what anyone thinks about the impact of splitting 
3095, however!  How much of the MIB can/should be based on specific 
profile details, rather than 'generic' framework?  (Clearly in the cases 
mentioned above, opaque numeric identifiers could be used)
Anyway, it's a general issue that it would be nice to have some input on...

On a related note, there are a number of configuration parameters which 
only really have 'per profile' significance (for example 'k_1' and 
'n_1').  These parameters are specific to certain profiles .  'k and n' 
also make a useful example, in that k_1 and n_1 are likely to be chosen 
based on the link characteristics.  So, we have values that are 
per-profile and should be configurable (at least) per-interface.  (I 
suppose it makes sense, anyway, to know which profiles are supported on 
any given interface...)

Where a context is using a particular profile, it is not clear to me 
whether or not it is desirable to be able to 'tweak' these values on a 
per-context basis.  Again, any thoughts?

Cheers,

Mark.

-- 
Mark A. West, Consultant Engineer
Roke Manor Research Ltd., Romsey, Hants.  SO51 0ZN
Phone +44 (0)1794 833311   Fax  +44 (0)1794 833433

(Yes, I do know that my disclaimer is in an attachment.  And, no, I 
didn't ask for it to be that way)

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:13:22 +0100

Hi,

since Juergen is off for the next days I'll take the thread to handle the 
comments/thoughts.

Looking forward for a lot of comments!

Cheers
Martin

--On Montag, Februar 25, 2002 10:03:29 +0000 "West, Mark (ITN)" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Having just read through the draft MIB, a couple of questions have arisen
> which I think may benefit from a wider audience...
>
> interested to know what anyone thinks about the impact of splitting 3095,
> however!  How much of the MIB can/should be based on specific profile
> details, rather than 'generic' framework?  (Clearly in the cases
> mentioned above, opaque numeric identifiers could be used) Anyway, it's a
> general issue that it would be nice to have some input on...
>

Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories      [email-masked]
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de             IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc