Subject: RE: [rohc] ROHC Charter Update Proposal

From: "Ertekin Emre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:02:31 -0400

> 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 guess we can release the IKEv2 draft without resolving the
unification/non-unification issue, however, I would like to point out
that content of the IKEv2 draft is dependent on the outcome of the
issue.  For example, as we indicated at the last WG meeting -- what are
the set of channel parameters that IKE will negotiate?  Should the draft
be written such that IKEv2 is extended to negotiate just RoHC channel
parameters?  Perhaps it should negotiate ECRTP and RoHC channel
parameters?  The set of HC parameters that IKEv2 negotiates depends on
1) If the two HC algorithms are unified, and 2) (if they are unified),
how they are unified.

Anyways, we have the IKEv2 draft prepared; we will submit the draft for
review.

Best Regards,
Emre

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

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 08:22:33 +0200

> issue.  For example, as we indicated at the last WG meeting -- what
> are the set of channel parameters that IKE will negotiate?
> Should the draft
> 1) If the two HC algorithms are unified, and 2) (if they are
> unified), how they are unified. 
> 
> Anyways, we have the IKEv2 draft prepared; we will submit the
> draft for> review.

Excellent. I recommend you to assume ROHC-only for now, as that
solution would match both the "no, we will not care about non-ROHC"
approach and the "yes, other schemes can be supported through
ROHC-encapsulation" approach.

Are you updating the HCoIPsec draft as well?

BR
/L-E