Hi Bob,
Thanks for your comments. Please find my response below:
All,
Sorry for my belated response. This last workweek didn't allow me time
to
respond on the date requested.
Comments:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09.txt
- 2.1.2. ROHC Attribute Types, Integrity Algorithm for Verification
of
Decompressed Headers
"Upon receipt of the ROHC_INTEG attribute(s), the responder must select
exactly one of proposed algorithms and send the selected algorithm back
to
the initiator."
I believe the intent here is to converge on exactly one ICV algorithm.
It
should be noted that the chosen value (i.e. exactly ONE ROHC_INTEG
attribute) is included in the N(ROHC_SUPPORTED) Notify message returned
by
the Responder to the Initiator. It would be pointless to include more
than
one, as the signaling of ROHC Channel Parameters is only a two message
exchange, and this is the second of two messages.
Yes, I agree. I will account for your comment in the next iteration
of the draft.
- 4. IANA Considerations, ROHC Attribute Types" registry
Would it be prudent to allocate some space in this registry for
"Private
Use" values? Not sure how much we might need, or what they would be
used
for.
I can go either way here. ;-) Anyone else on this think we should
allocate values for "Private Use"? If so, how many?
BR,
Emre
Bob Stangarone
-----Original Message-----
From: rohc-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:rohc-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
The
IESG
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:47 AM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: rohc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [rohc] Last Call: draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec
(IKEv2
Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec
(ROHCoIPsec)) to
Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Robust Header Compression WG
(rohc) to consider the following document:
- 'IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec
(ROHCoIPsec) '
<draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-09.txt> as a Proposed
Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2009-09-17. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-
hcoipse
c-09.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag
=1520
6&rfc_flag=0
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf