< draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-rfc3095-interoperability-03.txt   draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-rfc3095-interoperability-04.txt >
Network Working Group L-E. Jonsson Network Working Group L-E. Jonsson
INTERNET-DRAFT Ericsson INTERNET-DRAFT Ericsson
Expires: December 2004 June 17, 2004 Expires: September 2005 March 22, 2005
Interoperability of RFC 3095 Interoperability of RFC 3095
<draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-rfc3095-interoperability-03.txt> <draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-rfc3095-interoperability-04.txt>
Status of this memo Status of this memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I (we) certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
patent or other IPR claims of which I am (we are) aware have been applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
disclosed, and any of which I (we) become aware will be disclosed, in have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
accordance with RFC 3668 (BCP 79). aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of RFC 3668.
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I (we) accept the provisions of By submitting this Internet-Draft, I (we) accept the provisions of
Section 3 of RFC 3667 (BCP 78). Section 3 of RFC 3978 (BCP 78).
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or cite them other than as "work in progress". material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/lid-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This document is a submission of the IETF ROHC WG. Comments should be This document is a submission of the IETF ROHC WG. Comments should be
directed to the ROHC WG mailing list, rohc@ietf.org. directed to the ROHC WG mailing list, rohc@ietf.org.
Abstract Abstract
RFC 3095 defines a Proposed Standard protocol for RObust Header RFC 3095 defines a Proposed Standard protocol for RObust Header
skipping to change at page 2, line 11 skipping to change at page 2, line 11
features to be tested, and also the test status for each feature, features to be tested, and also the test status for each feature,
based on reports from interoperability tests or other proof of based on reports from interoperability tests or other proof of
interoperability. interoperability.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction.....................................................2 1. Introduction.....................................................2
1.1. Overview of Test Strategies.................................3 1.1. Overview of Test Strategies.................................3
2. General ROHC Feature Tests.......................................3 2. General ROHC Feature Tests.......................................3
3. Profile 0 Feature Tests..........................................4 3. Profile 0 Feature Tests..........................................4
4. Profile 1 Feature Tests..........................................4 4. Profile 1 Feature Tests..........................................5
4.1. Header Formats..............................................5 4.1. Header Formats..............................................5
4.2. Feedback Formats...........................................12 4.2. Feedback Formats...........................................12
4.3. Mode Transitions...........................................13 4.3. Mode Transitions...........................................12
4.4. Other features.............................................14 4.4. Other features.............................................13
5. Profile 2 Interoperability Tests................................15 5. Profile 2 Interoperability Tests................................14
5.1. Header Formats.............................................15 5.1. Header Formats.............................................14
5.2. Feedback Formats...........................................20 5.2. Feedback Formats...........................................20
5.3. Mode Transitions...........................................21 5.3. Mode Transitions...........................................20
5.4. Other features.............................................22 5.4. Other features.............................................21
6. Profile 3 Interoperability Tests................................22 6. Profile 3 Interoperability Tests................................22
6.1. Header Formats.............................................22 6.1. Header Formats.............................................22
6.2. Feedback Formats...........................................28 6.2. Feedback Formats...........................................27
6.3. Mode Transitions...........................................28 6.3. Mode Transitions...........................................28
6.4. Other features.............................................29 6.4. Other features.............................................29
7. Security Considerations.........................................30 7. Security Considerations.........................................29
8. Acknowledgements................................................30 8. IANA Considerations.............................................29
9. References......................................................30 9. Acknowledgements................................................29
10. Authors' Addresses.............................................30 10. References.....................................................30
11. Authors' Addresses.............................................30
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Internet standards process [1] places a number of requirements on The Internet standards process [1] places a number of requirements on
a standards track protocol specification. In particular, when a standards track protocol specification. In particular, when
advancing a protocol from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard level advancing a protocol from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard level
it is necessary to demonstrate at least two independent and it is necessary to demonstrate at least two independent and
interoperable implementations, from different code bases, of all interoperable implementations, from different code bases, of all
options and features of that protocol. Further, in cases where one or options and features of that protocol. Further, in cases where one or
more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two
skipping to change at page 30, line 20 skipping to change at page 29, line 37
8-bit CRC, where packets are correctly verified by a 8-bit CRC, where packets are correctly verified by a
matching CRC. matching CRC.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
When implementing and testing various protocol mechanisms as When implementing and testing various protocol mechanisms as
described in this document, the security issues of [2] should be described in this document, the security issues of [2] should be
taken into consideration. This document, however, does not imply any taken into consideration. This document, however, does not imply any
additional security aspects to be considered. additional security aspects to be considered.
8. Acknowledgements 8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
9. Acknowledgements
The "RTP Interoperability Statement" draft by Colin Perkins has been The "RTP Interoperability Statement" draft by Colin Perkins has been
a valuable source for ideas to this document. Thanks also to Carsten a valuable source for ideas to this document. Thanks also to Carsten
Bormann, Vicknesan Ayadurai, Mark West, Kristofer Sandlund and Tommy Bormann, Vicknesan Ayadurai, Mark West, Kristofer Sandlund and Tommy
Lundemo for fruitful discussions and comments. Lundemo for fruitful discussions and comments.
9. References 10. References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process", RFC 2026, October [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process", RFC 2026, October
1996. 1996.
[2] C. Bormann, et al., "RObust Header Compression (ROHC)", [2] C. Bormann, et al., "RObust Header Compression (ROHC)",
RFC 3095, July 2001. RFC 3095, July 2001.
10. Authors' Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses
Lars-Erik Jonsson Lars-Erik Jonsson
Ericsson AB Ericsson AB
Box 920 Box 920
SE-971 28 Lulea, Sweden SE-971 28 Lulea, Sweden
Phone: +46 70 513 56 21 Phone: +46 70 513 56 21
Fax: +46 920 20 20 99 Fax: +46 920 20 20 99
EMail: lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com EMail: lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Disclaimer of Validity Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
This Internet-Draft expires December 17, 2004. This Internet-Draft expires September 22, 2005.
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
24 lines changed or deleted 53 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/