Hi, Jerry,
This is easier than it should be... slicing down through the stuff we
already worked out (if I deleted it, I agree with your plan)...
option is the same for both IPCP and IPV6CP. This configuration
option MUST be included for ECRTP, CRTP and IPHC PW types and MUST
NOT be included for ROHC PW types.
Spencer: Is it obvious what the decompressor does if it sees this
configuration option for ROHC PW types? It may be - I'm just
asking. I'd
have the same question elsewhere (in 5.2.2, for example), but
will only ask it here.
Yes. The corresponding text for the ROHC configuration option is
specified in Section 5.2.5. In other sections we specify that the
configuration options are only applicable to specific header compression
formats, e.g., as in Section 5.2.2 for cRTP.
Spencer: there was this theory about testing TCP with "kamikaze" or
"Christmas tree" packets (you set all the options to "1", whether that makes
sense or not, and see what the other guy does). I think I'm asking "what
SHOULD happen if the decompressor sees a packet like this". I'm wondering if
we still worry about things like this...
and loss, it is still the protocol of choice in many
cases. In these
circumstances, it must be implemented and deployed with care. IPHC
should use TCP_NODELTA, ECRTP should send absolute values, ROHC
should be adapted as discussed in [RFC4224]. An evaluation and
simulation of ECRTP and ROHC reordering is given in [REORDER-EVAL].
Spencer (Probably a Nit): It wasn't obvious to me whether these
recommendations are sufficient to "implement and deploy with care", or
whether additional precautions must be taken. Even putting these
recommendations in a numbered list immediately after
"deployed with care"
would be sufficient, if these recommendations are sufficient.
This goes back to a discussion with Allison Mankin RE CRTP issues
discussed icw RFC 4446. There was no further list of recommendations
out of that discussion, rather, the point is that in packet-lossy
environments, for example, CRTP may not work well and ECRTP may perform
better. Some folks felt that CRTP should be excluded because of that
problem. There were, however, other concerns raised on deploying ECRTP
(e.g., CRTP is already widely deployed, plus other reasons).
Spencer: would it be appropriate to say "implement and deploy with care:",
and then put the recommendations in a numbered list? My concern was pretty
basic - if I follow these recommendations, do I still have a problem, or am
OK?
Again, thanks for a quick followup, while I can still remember what I was
thinking when I wrote the review :-)
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf