RE: Last-call (RE: [rohc] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-07.txt)

[Mikael Degermark <micke@CS.Arizona.EDU>]

One small comment:

At 02:29 PM 2/6/01 +0100, Dr. Carsten Bormann wrote:
>The paragraph in front of the packet format now says:
>
>In the ESP header [ESP, section 2], the fields that can be compressed are
>the SPI, the sequence number, the Next Header, and the padding bytes if they
>are in the standard format defined in [ESP]. (As always, the decompressor
>reinserts these fields based on the information in the context. Care must be
>taken to correctly reinsert all the information as it is only an assumption
>that ESP/Null is actually being used.)

The primary reason is to make the authentication work, i.e., the cryptographic checksum 
must be verified over the same data it was computed over. So instead I'd say

... as the Authentication Data must be verified over the exact same information it
was computed over. 

>Does that help?
>
>Gruesse, Carsten
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-robhc@sm.luth.se [mailto:owner-robhc@sm.luth.se]On Behalf Of
>> Mikael Degermark
>> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 21:16
>> To: haihong.zheng@nokia.com
>> Cc: micke@cs.arizona.edu; cabo@tzi.org; rohc@cdt.luth.se
>> Subject: RE: Last-call (RE: [rohc] I-D
>> ACTION:draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-07.txt)
>>
>>
>> Hi Haihong,
>>
>> At 12:47 PM 2/5/01 -0600, haihong.zheng@nokia.com wrote:
>> >Hi, Mikael,
>> >
>> >Thanks for the answer. I think I missed the statement part. If section
>> >5.8.4.3 only applies to NULL ESP, the two problems I raised are
>> not valid.
>>
>> Ok, I'm glad that we've resolved this issue.
>>
>> >About the "reinsert" statement, I (as one of the authors) can perfectly
>> >understand what to do at the decompressor part without the
>> statement. But if
>> >one statement can clear up potential confusion, why don't we do it?
>>
>> Fine with me. Carsten, can you do that, please?
>