Re: [rohc] Support of ROHC Piggyback Feedback in LTE
pelle@cdt.luth.se Fri, 26 June 2009 18:52 UTC
Return-Path: <pelle@cdt.luth.se>
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 32FCA3A6989 for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Um1R-WiMclw5 for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxi.ltu.se (mxi.ltu.se [130.240.42.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7233A67AA for <rohc@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sm.luth.se (lisa.sm.luth.se [130.240.3.1]) by mxi.ltu.se (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n5QITZJx023134; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:29:35 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sm.luth.se (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5QITH7U019420; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:29:35 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from bas10-montrealak-1128582994.dsl.bell.ca (bas10-montrealak-1128582994.dsl.bell.ca [67.68.207.82]) by www.sm.luth.se (IMP) with HTTP for <pelle@mailhost.sm.luth.se>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:29:17 +0200
Message-ID: <1246040957.4a45137dcf34e@www.sm.luth.se>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:29:17 +0200
From: pelle@cdt.luth.se
To: Karthik Balaguru <Karthik.Balaguru@lntinfotech.com>
References: <OF4774DF8E.E95CB052-ON652575E0.0033DFE9-652575E0.0046A641@lntinfotech.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF4774DF8E.E95CB052-ON652575E0.0033DFE9-652575E0.0046A641@lntinfotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1
X-Originating-IP: 67.68.207.82
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rohc] Support of ROHC Piggyback Feedback in LTE
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: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:52:18 -0000
Hello, Kind reminder - please note that this mailing list is for questions concerning IETF specifications handled by the ROHC WG. Questions related to 3GPP specifications may not receive any answers, and should be directed to the group responsible for those specifications. Wrt to the total length of the entire feedback information, my understanding is that it is derived by inspecting the first two octets of each feedback element in the ROHC packet. Cheers, ///Ghyslain PS: Regarding your 3GPP specific questions, let's hope the following can provide you with some useful guidance. For further questions, please turn to the proper forum. The following is my understanding of the LTE specs. For Rel-8 PDCP LTE as per TS36.323v860, if header compression is configured for the DRB by RRC at RB setup the following applies: the PDCP Data PDUs carry the entire ROHC packet (i.e. piggybacked feedback, if any, and the ROHC header and payload) in the data part of the PDCP PDU (see subclause 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 in particular); the PDCP Control PDU carries only interspersed ROHC feedback packets (see subclause 5.5.4 and 6.2.5 in particular). Ciphering in Rel-8 LTE PDCP is not applicable to PDCP Control PDUs (there is no associated PDCP SN), but ciphering is always applied to PDCP Data PDUs for DRBs (thus always covering both the piggybacked feedback, if any, and the rest of the ROHC packet). The compressor in the PDCP entity first assemble the ROHC packet (including any piggyback feedback from the decompressor), then PDCP ciphers the result as the data part of the PDCP PDU with the COUNT associated to the original, uncompressed SDU. ROHC is not applicable to SRBs. Quoting Karthik Balaguru <Karthik.Balaguru@lntinfotech.com>: > Hi, > > Need clarifications on ROHC Piggyback feedback support in LTE. > > LTE standrad states that PDCP Control Packet (Feedback) shall not be > ciphered (Reference - 3GPP TS 36.323 V8.5.0, Section 5.5.4 ) and PDCP data > > packets shall be ciphered by configured algorithm (Reference - Section > 5.2.1, 5.2.2 ) . > In case of Piggyback feedback packet, DataPacket will be attatched at the > end of feedback packet. (RFC 3095 - Page no 43,44 & Section 5.2.2) > 1. In LTE PDCP, If the Data Packet should be ciphered for these piggyback > packets , then how will the Peer entity generate COUNT input for ciphering > algorithm as PDCP-SN is not available ? > 2. In LTE PDCP, Can the data Packet be sent without ciphering in Piggyback > Feedback packets ? > > Further reference w.r.t RFC 3095 - Page no 44 > d) To allow piggybacking, 5), it is possible to deduce the length of > feedback information by examining the first few octets of the > feedback. This allows the decompressor to pass piggybacked feedback > information to the associated same-side compressor > without understanding its format. The length information decouples > the decompressor from the compressor in the sense that > the decompressor can process the compressed header immediately without > waiting for the compressor to hand it back after parsing > the feedback information. > > Kindly clarify regarding the support of RoHC piggyback Feedback in LTE ? > > Thx in advans, > Karthik Balaguru > > ______________________________________________________________________
- [rohc] Support of ROHC Piggyback Feedback in LTE Karthik Balaguru
- Re: [rohc] Support of ROHC Piggyback Feedback in … pelle
- Re: [rohc] Support of ROHC Piggyback Feedback in … Karthik Balaguru
- [rohc] SN Encoding clarification Karthik Balaguru
- Re: [rohc] SN Encoding clarification Ang Way Chuang
- Re: [rohc] SN Encoding clarification Karthik Balaguru
- Re: [rohc] SN Encoding clarification Ang Way Chuang