Qiaobing,
I do not know exactly what you mean with friendly, using a non-standard
extension is in my opinion not what I would call friendly...=)
Anyway, LLA [profile 5] handles Xtensions as ROHC RTP [profile 1], i.e.
its presence is indicated in IR's (or extensions to CO) and the X-bit
is thus transparently decompressed (as all fields). The extension
itself is seen as just another part of the payload data.
Rgds,
/L-E
-----Original Message-----
From: rohc-admin@ietf.org [mailto:rohc-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Qiaobing Xie
Sent: den 6 februari 2004 11:07
To: ROHC WG
Subject: [rohc] LLA-ROHC question
Hi,
I wonder how friendly is LLA-ROHC towards RTP packets with a customer
defined header extension (i.e., X flag =1). How is this handled?
regards,
-Qiaobing
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.
E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.