Re: [rohc] One DOubt Regarding the ROHC-TCP

Ganesh wrote:
> Klaus Warnke,
> so ur mentioning that when the negotiation is happening between 
> compressor and decompressor, it has to be done based on each profile, 
> not on version based,
>  i.e it can be only RTP profile (0x101)  for version 1 and all other 
> profiles,UDP, ESP can be version 0 etc??
Yes, I think so. Maybe it makes no sense to mix profile versions, but
I think the "server" version should offer both versions, and the
"client" version maybe support the RFC3095 or RoHCv2 versions of the
profiles.
> is it the efficient way of doing that one, for mobile implementation 
> for 3gpp based things, as their is constrains on memory and processing 
> resources..
> In my opinion, if both versions are activated but for different 
> profiles, there wont be problem for Network nodes, as there is not 
> constraint on memory or processing resources.
Sorry, but I can't make a statement about that.
>
> Pls comment on the doubts i have.
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Ganesh
br
Klaus Warnke
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> 2009/7/27 Klaus Warnke <klaus.warnke@acticom.de 
> <mailto:klaus.warnke@acticom.de>>
>
>     Ganesh,
>
>     the version of profile used, is negotiated for every profile
>     independent, not for all profiles together.  For the TCP profile
>     only one version exist (yet). Therefore the profile has the
>     identifier 0x0006.  For IP/UDP/RTP two version exist:
>
>     RFC3905: 0x0001
>     RFC5225: 0x0101
>
>     The upper octet is the version number, the lower the profile
>     number itself.  Because while compression and de-compression only
>     one lower octet is send, the version has to be negotiation first.
>     It is a little bit confusing, that for the TCP profile the
>     version number is 0, but for the TCP profile only a on the RoHC
>     FN definition exists.  If it makes sense to mix profiles, using
>     the RTP profile version 0 from RFC3095 and UPD version 1 defined
>     in RoHC FN, I don't know.  But it is possible from my point of view.
>
>     br
>     Klaus Warnke
>
>     Ganesh wrote:
>
>         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
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Rohc mailing list
>         Rohc@ietf.org <mailto:Rohc@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
>          
>