The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework
RFC 4995

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Lars Eggert) Yes

Comment (2006-12-11)
No email
send info
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?

Magnus Westerlund Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

Comment (2006-12-12)
No email
send info
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?


(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-12-14)
No email
send info
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.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection