On 9/7/22 19:08, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 8. Sep 2022, at 00:05, Robert Moskowitz <rgm-i...@htt-consult.com> wrote:
But it is architecturally wrong to call what ROHC or SCHC as carrying an upper
layer protocol. They carry what is in our architecture a Transport Layer
protocol, acting in many ways as part of the IP layer itself…
Header Compression is organized layer violation, so even trying to assign a
layer to it is futile.
Header Compression is usually done hop-by-hop as a local optimization,
invisible to the endpoints; there is no end-to-end semantics that would be
typical for a Transport Layer protocol.
The discussion so far about whether SCHC (or ROHC) would be IPv6 Extension
Header Types seems to be rather sophistic to me, with little practical
relevance of choosing one or the other. Is there any behavior that would
change based on whether they are IPv6 Extension Header Types or not?
And I guess in large measure, this is the core of it. What processing
uniqueness is there for Ext Headers? Why bother identifying which
Protocols are or are not such.
I guess I need to read 8200 to understand this? As if this is something
I really need to add to my workload? :)
And although much of Header Compression is done hop-by-hop as you
indicated, I am proposing E2E use cases.
But then CoAP compression within DTLS is E2E.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
