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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:rohc-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > The > IESG > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:47 AM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: rohc@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2009-09-17. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf