RE: [rohc] FN: default_methods and control fields clarification/new usage

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

> Yes, it's easy to "say", but my concern is what it *means*. 
> This is about 3095 compatibility. What does "control field" 
> mean in 3095? Can't 3095 control fields have context? Are we 
> about to break something? I'm no 3095 expert as you know, so 
> help me out here =)

The only compatibility with 3095 we have to care about is 
defined by profile specifications, which have to make sure
there are no packet type collisions, i.e. that profile common
packet formats are properly defined. There are also concerns
related to feedback handling and other "framework issues", 
but they are all part of the profile specification.

The FN is only about how to define formats, not about what to
put in them, so I see no 3095 compatibility issues with the FN.

When it comes to the term "control field", it does not even
exist in RFC 3095.

/L-E

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