rohc over... dvb?

["West, Mark" <mark.a.west@roke.co.uk>]

Hi all,

There wasn't really time to dive down this particular rat-hole at the BoF,
but it seems like an opportune moment to raise the issue...

[if it's already been discussed, then my apologies, but I think I'm safe!
 And if this mail is duplicated, I can't drive my mail client properly...]

It seemed to be that the Ethertype was felt more appropriate than PPP for
the 'type' field, which seems entirely reasonable.  About the only
justification for the PPP type was that there is already a PPP type value
for ROHC, which is seen as being useful in the IP/MPEG-2 context.

Obviously, an Ethertype could be acquired for ROHC. However, a word of
caution!  This would not be the whole story...  In terms of 'ROHC over
Foo', this is only defined for Foo == PPP (in RFC 3241).  This specifies
the negotiation that is necessary to make ROHC work.  So, you would need
not only an Ethertype, but also a 'ROHC over Ethernet' description to
enable this.  Maybe not much of an issue, but...

FWIW, there was some discussion about ROHC over 802.11b (I think) a while
ago (well, at S-F).  However, I don't think that's gone anywhere; it's
certainly not on the agenda this week.

Cheers,

Mark.

--
Mark A. West, Consultant Engineer
Roke Manor Research Ltd., Romsey, Hants.  SO51 0ZN
Phone +44 (0)1794 833311   Fax  +44 (0)1794 833433

Yes, I know my disclaimer is in an attachment.  And no, I didn't ask for
it to be like that.

--
Registered Office: Roke Manor Research Ltd, Siemens House, Oldbury, Bracknell,
Berkshire. RG12 8FZ

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to
Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without
permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or
change any contractual relationship.