RFC Editor Note
OLD:
2.5. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
The ROHC WG must spend effort to achieve a high degree of confidence
<<< that there are no known IPR that covers a final compression solution
for TCP.
Justification: Currently there is no TCP header compression scheme
available that can efficiently compress the packet headers of modern
TCP, e.g. with SACK, ECN, etc. ROHC is expected to fill this gap by
providing a ROHC TCP scheme that is applicable in the wide area
Internet, not only over error-prone radio links. It must thus attempt
<<< to be as future-proof as possible, and only unencumbered solutions
<<< will be acceptable to the Internet at large.
with the following:
NEW:
2.5. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
The ROHC WG must spend effort to achieve a high degree of confidence
>>> that there are no known IPR claims that cover the final compression
solution for TCP.
Justification: Currently there is no TCP header compression scheme
available that can efficiently compress the packet headers of modern
TCP, e.g. with SACK, ECN, etc. ROHC is expected to fill this gap by
providing a ROHC TCP scheme that is applicable in the wide area
Internet, not only over error-prone radio links. It must thus attempt
>>> to be as future-proof as possible, and only unencumbered solutions, or
>>> solutions where the terms of any IPR are such that there is no
>>> hindrance on implementation and deployment, will be acceptable to the
>>> Internet at large.