Subject: RE: [rohc] ROHC Charter Update Proposal

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:54:01 +0200

> On Aug 31 2006, at 19:24, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> 
>> consensus in the WG that this is not needed for the HC over IPsec
>> solution
> 
> (It's hard to read this, but I believe "this" = adopting legacy
> schemes in the ROHC framework.)

...through encapsulation profile(s). Yes, that is what "this" means.
 
> I don't think we have that consensus.
> (Clearly, I believe that "this" is the right way to do HCoIPsec, and
> Ghyslain does not believe that "this" is the right way to do
> HCoIPsec.) 
> 
> Obviously, by keeping this question in limbo, the question will
> become moot: The legacy folks will go ahead and do their own
> HCoIPsec, maybe even before we (ROHC) have stopped discussing.
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten

Well, my take is that not doing "this" now does not close the
door for doing it later on, when there is real interest and
arguments for doing it, as well as people interested in doing it.

I any case, I believe we have consensus not do provide support
for non-ROHC compression by other means than possibly through
the encapsulation approach. We can therefore do the rest of the
HCoIPsec work without being dependent on a decision on this
specific matter. Right?

I really want to get the work with these three drafts going:

Jan 2007    RObust Header Compression Protocol Number Registration
            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 

/L-E

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

---

From: "Ghyslain Pelletier \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 16:35:19 +0200

Carsten Bormann wrote:
> (It's hard to read this, but I believe "this" = adopting
> legacy schemes in the ROHC framework.)

I read "this" as being "this milestone", "not needed" meaning "a
possility not yet having consensus, but not a necessity as there might
be other alternatives to solve this".

> (Clearly, I believe that "this" is the right way to do
> HCoIPsec, and Ghyslain does not believe that "this" is the right way
> to do HCoIPsec.) 

My first argument is that there are a number of possible alternatives to
"this", i.e. that to adopt legacy schemes in the RoHC framework is one
of many that has been proposed as a solution to HC over IPSec.

My second argument is that I do not think that we have consensus in this
WG about which alternative we should go for (independently of my
personal opinion on this topic, a I haven't seen that consensus anyway).

My third argument is that making RoHC profiles of legacy HC schemes is
going quite far for the sake of only solving HC over IPSec, knowing that
this has other impacts to our work and that we would then have to agree
how this would be done. I personally don't think that we should treat
the specification of legacy HC scheme any different than other work we
take into this WG, e.g. a motivation for the work and proper
requirements with respect to the level of robustness and efficiency that
this WG strives to achieve. In this respect, I fell that RoHC already
provides a sufficient compression profile for whatever legacy HC
algorithm compresses, so motivation is hardly there. Wrt requirements,
this is yet another story I already discussed a little about.

Therefore it does not feel comfortable for me to list "this" as a
milestone at this point in time.
 
> become moot: The legacy folks will go ahead and do their own HCoIPsec,
> maybe even before we (ROHC) have stopped discussing.

Well, I got aware of this question only since the Montreal meeting. So,
instead of leaving it in "limbo", I would rather encourage a discussion
on this issue instead. I have yet to see technical arguments motivating
doing this.

If legacy folk are to go ahead with their own solution before we have
this discussion, it means two things:

1) we have so little resources in this WG that we can't discuss
   this issue, thus even less to adopt legacy schemes in this WG 
   and make them RoHC profiles would we have consensus to do this;
2) there is a strong drive for solving legacy HC over IPSec
   somewhere else in the IETF

I hope that 1) is not the case. I don't believe 2) reflects the
situation either. I even believe that the authors of the draft in
question have mentionned that RoHCoverIPSec is what the're aiming at,
and of particular interest is RoHCv2?

I am personally not really keen on jumping into a solution like "this"
without discussing it first, just for the sake that others might solve
it in a different way. Going further, I actually encourage others to
solve legacy HC over IPSec their own way, outside this WG.

My opinion is that we should solve RoHCoverIPSec and not do anything wrt
to legacy HC, as described why in a previous email I have sent to this
WG earlier.

Regards,

///Ghyslain

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:34:17 +0200

Carsten Bormann skrev:
> (It's hard to read this, but I believe "this" = adopting legacy schemes 
> in the ROHC framework.)
> 

To clarify, the discussion was around the milestone, not the support of 
legacy systems. It seems that you need to discuss this further. Please 
remember that what the WG is tasked with is in the charter text. The 
milestones are an attempt to provide guidance on the pieces and when 
they should be finished.

It is your task to figure out how to resolve the HC over IPsec solution. 
  It is you that need to come to consensus about what that means 
exactly. Due to this I think you should continue discussing the solution 
and that should hopefully enable to determine if you need this milestone 
or not.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:38:49 +0200

I don't think we have that consensus.
(Clearly, I believe that "this" is the right way to do HCoIPsec, and  
Ghyslain does not believe that "this" is the right way to do HCoIPsec.)

Obviously, by keeping this question in limbo, the question will  
become moot:
The legacy folks will go ahead and do their own HCoIPsec, maybe even  
before we (ROHC) have stopped discussing.

Gruesse, Carsten