IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rohc] One DOubt Regarding the ROHC-TCP

Ganesh <ganeshbabukamma@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2009 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ganeshbabukamma@gmail.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 E9CC93A6C62 for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 q4TLFn79VxMF for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3AB3A6C1E for <rohc@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so1617306qwd.31 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=+A5trWgomrQcB3Ls9wdMprlNkf7KecxvElGF0cfUhb4=; b=K/TlAjGme+5W9QUJEC1Cja1mHcke2D7V7820tvZvdL0n1f0ON308cUadKDmv73FJfw vPYZcXPkfTz2d10KyDfrxoyBZx15nLp3HQ3a1CsKjMpDOR/kY9tgBz6eLcDDe6XKO5qP I3+z5a8TMVWqPWU0wRuKEoDvxf1FYU0Xz0Clc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=RvINrxWbzUPMukf90ca/yYqqt2cfdshBCsNbj93buTKfOAKFjw+W/jWfVl7Ofz5SA6 4shu3h98fgLKSsAY/vluK0Lvl+IeZLZFOST6RITvVa9ODNPiAbSa+2rLRiNJWZlteJ7l LHw0VYbTIRsN47czUEFDXpOshK5ztWgpbHTD8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.75.211 with SMTP id z19mr3349924vcj.43.1248692524131; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <adc9dae40907270400y2a860657p156c8e620b4264df@mail.gmail.com>
References: <adc9dae40907270400y2a860657p156c8e620b4264df@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ganesh <ganeshbabukamma@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:01:44 +0900
Message-ID: <adc9dae40907270401i7e3e84dcv4fa2bc09e4770ea0@mail.gmail.com>
To: rohc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6477a8255a7fb046fade217"
Subject: [rohc] One DOubt Regarding the ROHC-TCP
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:04:30 -0000

Hi all, THe RFC 4996, is more inclined to ROHCV2 profiles, but the profile
number is defined as 0x006 (version 1), as per the RFC 5225, if we have
multiple variants of ROHC versions, then the ROHC compressor and
decompressor  after negotiation has to use only one version, if version 2 is
selected, then how the TCP packets will be compressed??
Can any one please reply to the Question??



Thanks & Regards,
Ganesh Babu Kamma

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email