[rohc] Clarification required for TCP Profile

Anil Maguluri <Anil.Maguluri@lntinfotech.com> Wed, 03 February 2010 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Anil.Maguluri@lntinfotech.com>
X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F1E28C143 for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:16:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y+yqfnjDi49X for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail192.messagelabs.com (mail192.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6114728C0DD for <rohc@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:16:44 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Anil.Maguluri@lntinfotech.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-192.messagelabs.com!1265188640!27836050!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=lntinfotech.com,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [203.101.96.9]
Received: (qmail 19907 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2010 09:17:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO blrinmstr01.bglrodc.lntinfotech.com) (203.101.96.9) by server-7.tower-192.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 3 Feb 2010 09:17:22 -0000
Received: from blrinmsmbx01.bglrodc.lntinfotech.com ([169.254.2.135]) by blrinmstr01.bglrodc.lntinfotech.com ([172.28.0.89]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:47:19 +0530
From: Anil Maguluri <Anil.Maguluri@lntinfotech.com>
To: "rohc@ietf.org" <rohc@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:47:17 +0530
Thread-Topic: Clarification required for TCP Profile
Thread-Index: Acqksa59mmlSKcwVQAeUtwntlMYZYw==
Message-ID: <C7232BDB534C6241BE85C96D129205D00281ADDBE5@BLRINMSMBX01.bglrodc.lntinfotech.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7232BDB534C6241BE85C96D129205D00281ADDBE5BLRINMSMBX01b_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [rohc] Clarification required for TCP Profile
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:16:48 -0000

Hi All,

Please clarify whether my understanding is right or not regarding the TCP Profile.

I am reading RFC 4996, I understood the decompressor states are same as ROHCv1
decompressor states (RFC 3095). But, I didn't see the compressor states in RFC 4996.
My understanding is that we have to use ROHCv1 compressor states for TCP.
Is it right?

Also the RFC 4996 is not mentioned MODE, but the feedback logic which mentioned
in the RFC 4996 says whenever compressor receives feedback (positive/negative)
is same as ROHCv2 feedback logic (RFC 5225). My understanding based on the above
points, we have to use U and B modes in TCP Profile (same as ROHCv2-RFC 5225).
Is it right?

RFC 4996 mentioned List Compression mechanism for TCP Option. As per my
understanding is this is also same as List compression mechanism in ROHCv2 (RFC 5225).
Is it right?

Thanks for your support.

Regards,
Anil Kumar Maguluri

________________________________
This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended recipient (s) If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disseminate the information, notify the sender and delete it from your system.

______________________________________________________________________