The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework
draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-04

[Ballot comment]
The document does not specify in the header if it obsoletes or updates RFC3095. Although the fact that the document 'replaces the framework specification of RFC 3095' is mentioned twice, there is no explicit mention if the content is identical with the one in RFC3095, and what sections in RFC3095 are being replaced. I believe that some text detaiing the relationship with RFC3095 would be useful for future users of the ROHC standards.

[Ballot comment]
Do we need a license in the code in Appendix A? I'd recommend one so that people know if they can adapt the code, use parts of it, etc.

Shouldn't the reference to profile 0x0000 in section 8. be to "this RFC" rather than to RFC3095?

thx,

[Ballot comment]
Section 3., paragraph 0:
> 3. Background (Informative)

  Aren't sections 1 and 2 informative also? Instead of including a tag
  in the section headings, it may be better to have a statement in the
  introduction along the lines of "Section 5 is the only normative
  section, all others are informative" and repeat it at the beginning of
  section 5.


Section 8, paragraph 3:
>    Profile Identifier    Usage                      Reference
>    ------------------    ----------------------    ---------
>    0x0000                ROHC uncompressed          RFC 3095

  "ROHC uncompressed" is also included in this document - should the
  table be adjusted accordingly?

[Ballot discuss]
The Introduction says
  This document explicitly defines the ROHC framework, and
  thus replaces the framework specification of RFC 3095.

The Abstract and the document header need to indicate formally that
it "updates RFC 3095", and I believe that there should be a section
identifying which specific parts of 3095 are updated.
(Do the same to rohcv2-profiles while you are at it.)

[Ballot discuss]
The Introduction says
  This document explicitly defines the ROHC framework, and
  thus replaces the framework specification of RFC 3095.

The Abstract and the document header need to indicate that
it updates RFC 3095, and I believe that there should be a section
identifying which specific parts of 3095 are updated.
(Do the same to rohcv2-profiles while you are at it.)

IANA Last Call Comment:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make a single change
to  the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rohc-pro-ids

IANA will update this registry with the policies for assigning
new values for the ROHC profile identifier. The new policy
will be:

"Specification Required: values and their meanings must be
documented in an RFC or in some other permanent and readily
available reference, in  sufficient detail that interoperability
between independent implementations  is possible. In the 8 LSBs,
the range 0 to 127 is reserved for IETF standard- track
specifications; the range 128 to 254 is available for other
specifications that meet this requirement (such as Informational
RFCs). The LSB value 255 is reserved for future extensibility
of the present specification."

IANA understands that this is the only IANA Action required
upon approval of this document.