Definitions of Managed Objects for RObust Header Compression (ROHC)
draft-ietf-rohc-mib-rtp-09

[Note]: 'Made the fix to the terminology Sec Cons an RFC Editor note: Security Considerations  This document is of an informative nature, and  does not have any
  security aspects to address. New: Security Considerations  The clear understanding of ROHC channels  and their relations to
  IP interfaces and the physical medium  plays a critical role in
  ensuring secure usage of ROHC.  This  document is therefore a valuable
  adjunct to the Security Considerations  found in RFC 3095 and other ROHC
  specifications, however, as it just reviews  information and definitions,
  it does not add new security issues to  the ROHC protocol specifications.
' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Made the fix to the terminology Sec Cons an RFC Editor note: Security Considerations   This document is of an informative nature, and   does not have any
  security aspects to address. New: Security Considerations   The clear understanding of ROHC channels   and their relations to
  IP interfaces and the physical medium   plays a critical role in
  ensuring secure usage of ROHC.  This   document is therefore a valuable
  adjunct to the Security Considerations   found in RFC 3095 and other ROHC
  specifications, however, as it just reviews   information and definitions,
  it does not add new security issues to   the ROHC protocol specifications.
' added by Amy Vezza

[Note]: 'Made the fix to the terminology Sec Cons an RFC Editor note:

Security Considerations

   This document is of an informative nature, and
   does not have any
   security aspects to address.


New:

Security Considerations

   The clear understanding of ROHC channels
   and their relations to
   IP interfaces and the physical medium
   plays a critical role in
   ensuring secure usage of ROHC.  This
   document is therefore a valuable
   adjunct to the Security Considerations
  found in RFC 3095 and other ROHC
  specifications, however, as it just reviews
  information and definitions,
  it does not add new security issues to
  the ROHC protocol specifications.
' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Bert pointed out a few more issues that required an additional rev.  So I sent mail to the authors asking them to go to 09 - expected before 2004-01-15.  I also pointed out a needed rev in the terminology draft - it had a noop security consideration section, and I suggested instead something like:  Clear definition of the components such as the channels and IP interfaces in ROHC is critical to ensuring secure design and operation, etc.' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Bert pointed out a few more issues that required an additional rev.  So I sent mail to the authors asking them to go to 09 - expected before 2004-01-15.  I also pointed out a needed rev in the terminology draft - it had a noop security consideration section, and I suggested instead something like:  Clear definition of the components such as the channels and IP interfaces in ROHC is critical to ensuring secure design and operation, etc.' added by Allison Mankin

[Note]: 'Bert pointed out a few more issues that required an additional rev.  So I sent mail to the authors asking them to go to 09 - expected before 2004-01-15.' added by Allison Mankin

MIB Doctor reviewing by principal, Mike Heard, and by Bert, revived again in November.  08 draft declared ready for IETF Last Call, so on its appearance, world: the rohc MIB!

[Note]: 'MIB Doctor reviewing by principal, Mike Heard, and by Bert, revived again in November.  08 draft declared ready for IETF Last Call, so on its appearance, world: the rohc MIB!' added by Allison Mankin

From: cabo@Informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE (Dr. Carsten Bormann)

On behalf of the ROHC Working Group, I now request publication of the
following two Internet-Drafts:

draft-ietf-rohc-mib-rtp-06.txt
                as Proposed Standard

draft-ietf-rohc-terminology-and-examples-02.txt
                as Informational RFC

WG last-call on the previous versions (-05/-01) of these documents has
completed on Wed, 2003-01-29, 18:00 UTC; the following comments were
received.

(MIB)
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01205.html
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01228.html
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01231.html
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01249.html

(Terminology and channel mapping examples)
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01210.html
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01211.html
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01229.html
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01234.html
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rohc/current/msg01250.html

None of these comments raise substantial new issues; a relatively
limited change was requested (and accepted) to the RohcProfileEntry
(adding rohcProfileNegotiated). The comments are addressed in the
current versions of the I-D as referenced above. (Some more significant
editing was also required to update the MIB boilerplate to the current
version; this does not change the substance of the documents, though.)

The title of the terminology and examples document was changed after
much discussion on the list (this document does not really stand on
its own -- it contains additional explanatory material intended to
become part of the ROHC DS, so it's a bit hard to give it a good title
for now while it is needed to support the MIB). (Oh, and the typo in
the title of mib-rtp-06 needs to be fixed when going to RFC.)

Gruesse, Carsten