RE: [rohc] UO-1 and R-1 in UDP/ESP profiles

["Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <lars-erik.jonsson at ericsson.com>]

So, I've added the following to the end of the second paragraph of 8.2:

  "When there is no compressed IP-ID, i.e. for IPv6 or when all
   IP Identification information is sent as-is (as indicated by
   RND/RND2 being set to 1), the decompressor ignores IP-ID bits
   within compressed base headers."

/L-E


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rohc-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rohc-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
> Sent: den 30 mars 2005 15:09
> To: Kristofer Sandlund; rohc at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rohc] UO-1 and R-1 in UDP/ESP profiles
> 
> 
> Sounds reasonable, I'll add that to my impl.guide to-do-list.
> 
> /L-E
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rohc-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:rohc-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> > Kristofer Sandlund
> > Sent: den 30 mars 2005 15:01
> > To: rohc at ietf.org
> > Subject: [rohc] UO-1 and R-1 in UDP/ESP profiles
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I think there's a slight ambiguity in 3095 regarding these 
> > packet formats in the 
> > case where we have only RND IP-IDs in the packet. In that 
> > case, the IPID is sent 
> > in full, but we still have a IP-ID LSB field that's being 
> transmitted.
> > 
> > Clearly, this field should be ignored in this case, but the 
> > spec does not 
> > explicitly say what the compressor and decompressor should do 
> > about them. 
> > Possibly interpretations could be:
> > 
> > 1) Compressor sends the LSBs in this field and the 
> > decompressor verifies that 
> > these LSBs are the same as the ones sent as "random".
> > 2) Compressor must set these bits to zero and decompressor 
> > verifies that
> > 3) Compressor can set any random value it likes (but 
> > preferrably zero) and the 
> > decompressor must ignore whatever is in this field.
> > 
> > Since a RND IP-ID can mean a IPv6 header, I think we can rule 
> > out 1) as a 
> > reaonable option. And to verify that the bits are zero seems 
> > useless, so why 
> > don't we just add a couple of sentences to the impl. guide to 
> > say that 3) is the 
> > way to do things?
> > 
> > BR,
> > 	Kristofer Sandlund, Effnet AB
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rohc mailing list
> > Rohc at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rohc mailing list
> Rohc at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> 

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc