RE: [rohc] Updating the ROHC impl. guide

["Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se>]

Zhigang,

The text of the updated draft became as follows:

  "An updating packet thus updates the reference values of all header
   fields, either explicitly or implicitly, with an exception for the
   UO-1-ID packet, which only updates TS, SN and IP-ID (see 5.7.3). In
   UO-mode, all packets are updating packets, while in R-mode all
   packets with a CRC are updating packets."

This is the same text as before, but adjusted based on your comment.
If you still think there are contradictions, we can fix that in the
next update. The reason I did not just take your alternative text was
that it changed the order of the sentences, and that made it fit less
well within the section as a whole.

Regarding your BTW, you are right that R-0 is a non-updating
packet as it does not have a CRC, but replace R-0 in my note with
R-0-CRC and you should get the point. All packets that are updating 
(i.e. all but R-0) update *all* fields (i.e. fields for which data
is sent in the compressed header plus TS & IP-ID implicitly), with
the single exception of UO-1-ID, which ONLY updates SN, TS & IP-ID.

/L-E


> -----Original Message-----
> From: zhigang.c.liu@nokia.com [mailto:zhigang.c.liu@nokia.com]
> Sent: den 3 mars 2003 18:00
> To: Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB); rohc@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rohc] Updating the ROHC impl. guide
> 
> 
> Lars-Erik,
> 
> Could you send out the new text about this in the updated 
> draft, so I can take a look? I want to check if my comments
> has been addressed correctly, since it looks you don't want to
> use my proposed text and I haven't seen you explaining the
> reasons. As a technical discussion, it would be helpful if 
> you simply point out what you disagree with my text, like what 
> I did with the text of current draft.
> 
> BTW, your reply below is confusing. For example, R-0 is NOT an 
> updating packet. It does not update *anything*. I don't know 
> why it is mentioned at all in the context of updating TTL field. 
> But again, I'd like to read the new text and see if it indeed 
> addresses my comments.
> 
> Zhigang
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)
> > [mailto:Lars-Erik.Jonsson@epl.ericsson.se]
> > Sent: March 03, 2003 2:57 AM
> > To: rohc@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [rohc] Updating the ROHC impl. guide
> > 
> > 
> > Zhigang,
> > 
> > In the updated draft, your comment has been addressed.
> > 
> > All packets are "totally updating", except for UO-1-ID.
> > Of course, packets such as R-0 or UO-0 can not update
> > fields like TTL, as they do not carry a TTL field.
> > However, I think it is still ok to say "update all
> > header fields", and make UO-1-ID the exception.
> > 
> > /L-E
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: zhigang.c.liu@nokia.com [mailto:zhigang.c.liu@nokia.com]
> > > Sent: den 28 februari 2003 17:32
> > > To: Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB); rohc@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: [rohc] Updating the ROHC impl. guide
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Lars-Erik,
> > > 
> > > Any thoughts on my proposed text for section 4.7? In particular,
> > > if you have think it is correct? Note that I added UO-0 in the
> > > last sentence. Also, what about UO-1 and UO-1-TS? Do they update
> > > all the header fields or just a subset?
> > > 
> > > ------------------
> > > "In UO-mode, all packets are updating packets, while in R-mode
> > > all packets with a CRC are updating packets. An updating packet
> > > in R-mode updates the reference values of all header fields,
> > > either explicitly or implicitly. Same is true for updating
> > > packets in UO-mode, except for UO-1-ID and UO-0, which only
> > > update TS, SN and IP-ID (see 5.7.3)."
> > > ------------------
> > > 
> > > Zhigang
> > > 
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc