| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Carl, Your comment #1 states that 5.2.4.2 "is problematic as it assumes that a well defined way of carrying e.g. ROHC over Ethernet is widely known. This is however not the case and leaves the CS SDU format undefined. IETF is investigating the issue of ROHCoE but no RFCs are available. Also the 802.16 draft does not define this." Please note the following: 1. 802.16e/D10 clearly specifies the encapsulation for "ROHC-ed IP packets over raw .16" as well as "ROHC-ed IP packets over ethernet CS": there are 2 new Convergence Sublayer types, and there are classifiers to recognize the embedded ROHC context Ids. So classifiers at the transmitting CS can identify the compressed packets (via the CS type) and map the SDUs to the appropriate service flows. The receiving CS then forwards the SDU up to the ROHC decompressor. 2. You seem to have in mind an internet draft for ROHC over 802 networks ( http://www.ietf.org/internet ) This internet-draft suggests a different encapsulation using LLC/SNAP, which is actually quite similar to the 802.16e solution but is suitable for a link layer such as 802.11 that does not have the equivalent of a CS. The internet-draft also discusses ROHC parameter negotiation. 802.16e sets its ROHC parameters (ie. ROHC profile, Context Id length etc.) via either profiles or out-of-band mechanisms. Negotiation is nice, but not fundamental. Other issues discussed in the draft include bridging and frame-padding - which do not apply to 802.16. Note also that this issue more naturally belongs to the link layer standardization (see section 2.3 of the draft "Who should standardize?"). 3. So the 802.16 text as it stands appears adequate, and I would suggest withdrawing this comment. Best Regards, - Jeff On 8/23/05, Roger B. Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote: > I have received Carl's comments and uploaded them: > http://ballot16e.wirelessman > > Roger > > At 17:17 +0300 2005-08-23, carl.eklund@NOKIA.COM wrote: > > > >Dear fellow 802.16e sponsor ballot resolution members and SB voters, > > > >again at the last meeting stuff got added into 16e that wasn't quite > >ready for primetime in my opinion. I deemed the problems with the added > >text serious enough to change my vote to a no and to submit technical > >binding comments. I thought I'll let the group know not to cause any > >additional time being wasted. > >Since we most likely are going to resolve 16e sponsor ballot comments in > >Taipei, I urge everyone to carefully go over D10 and submit comments on > >the problems and inconsistencies you find before the recirc ends. > > > >Keep your new material that doesn't specifically provide fixes to real > >problems to yourself! > > > >BR Carl > > > |