RE: [rohc] Empty CSRC list issue in IR packet.

OK, if that's the opinion of the group, that's how it will be!

I'll change that for the next update.

/L-E

> 
> 
> Hi Lars-Erik,
> 
> While I can see that the CC field does provide enough 
> information to allow
> the CSRC list to be optional, I think that 3095 is clear that 
> it is not
> optional.  
> 
> IMHO the consensus of the discussion a few weeks ago was 
> reached because it
> was felt that the implementer's guide should not change 
> something that is
> clear and interoperable as written in the rfc.  As Kristofer 
> mentioned,
> there have been 4 interops where the byte of zero has been 
> included and
> worked without a problem.  Consequently, it was felt that it 
> should be left
> as in the rfc (to minimize confusion and so that current 
> implementations
> remain interoperable) but could be mentioned in the 
> implementer's guide in a
> section for future changes/enhancements e.g. when going to 
> draft standard.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Abbie
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) 
> [mailto:lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:06 AM
> > To: 'Kristofer Sandlund'
> > Cc: 'rohc@ietf.org'
> > Subject: RE: [rohc] Empty CSRC list issue in IR packet.
> > 
> > Kristofer,
> > 
> > We did discuss this, and it was not included in the guide without
> > first being brought to the list. We CAN decide how to 
> interpret this,
> > my way of seeing it is that CC is the same field as in RTP, 
> thus CC=0
> > means there are no CSRC's. If I am the only one with that opinion,
> > then we'll change it in the impl guide. Personally I just think it
> > is non-logic to send an empty list when there is a counter 
> indicating
> > that the list is empty.
> > 
> > Just my 2 öre!
> > /L-E
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kristofer Sandlund [mailto:kristofer.sandlund@effnet.com]
> > > Sent: den 1 september 2003 17:59
> > > To: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
> > > Cc: Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB); Remi Pelland; 'rohc@ietf.org'
> > > Subject: Re: [rohc] Empty CSRC list issue in IR packet.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Lars-Erik,
> > >
> > > At the last interop test, the empty CSRC list was used as one
> > > byte set
> > > to 0, so I find it strange that there has been agreed a 
> consensus on
> > > interpreting it as being not present. I cannot find this
> > > discussion in
> > > either the mail archive or the notes from this year's ROHC WG
> > > meetings
> > > (but maybe I have just missed it, since searching mail
> > > archives is not
> > > fun :)
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rohc mailing list
> > Rohc@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
> 
> --
> Registered Office: Roke Manor Research Ltd, Siemens House, 
> Oldbury, Bracknell,
> Berkshire. RG12 8FZ
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments 
> is confidential to
> Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third 
> party without
> permission. This communication is for information only and 
> shall not create or
> change any contractual relationship.
> 

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