RE: [rohc] Update of RTP P and X bits
"Ghyslain Pelletier \(LU/EAB\)" <ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com> Thu, 01 June 2006 15:29 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Flp6h-0003Gs-RL; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:29:07 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Flp30-0000Dq-Ji for rohc@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:25:18 -0400
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Flool-0005Hu-Q6 for rohc@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:10:38 -0400
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3E84C4F0001 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:10:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:10:34 +0200
Received: from esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.2]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:10:34 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [rohc] Update of RTP P and X bits
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:10:34 +0200
Message-ID: <026F8EEDAD2C4342A993203088C1FC0502F5A51B@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rohc] Update of RTP P and X bits
Thread-Index: AcZ/BVj7TIPeh0dAQaCRpYmJLLk7+QGbiAug
From: "Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB)" <ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com>
To: "Lajos Zaccomer (IJ/ETH)" <lajos.zaccomer@ericsson.com>, rohc@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2006 15:10:34.0899 (UTC) FILETIME=[88397E30:01C6858D]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 14582b0692e7f70ce7111d04db3781c8
Cc:
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rohc-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Lajos, Regarding the text in section 6.4 on the R-P bit, I think that in short you mean that: - handling of the R-P bit is focusing on the case where RTP padding is not used (R-P=0) - padding is application dependent - this bit could be handled as any other semi-static field Regarding the text in section 6.5 on the X bit, I think that in short you mean that: - handling of the X bit is focusing on the case where RTP extensions are not used (X=0) - RTP extensions are not expected to be used - there is little gain for the IR packet in updating context(X)=0 when RX=0, as RX will likely be 1 - there is little gain for the IR-DYN packet in updating context(X)=0 when RX=0, because context(X) will already be established - this bit could be handled as any other semi-static field (provided there's a default initial value for context(X)) In both cases, I agree that this would be possible. However, we cannot make any changes to draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-impl-guide-19.txt with respect to your comments, for the following reasons: - making a change at this point would go against what has already been agreed for a long time, from interop events and discussions on the mailing list - the current agreement works, and your proposals target only a possible very minor inefficiency in the protocol (i.e. the protocol is not broken) I will, however, consider your proposals for the upcoming RoHCv2 update. Thanks /Ghyslain Lajos Zaccomer (IJ/ETH) wrote: > Hi RoHCers, > > The latest Implementers' Guide (version 19) clarified the update of > RTP P and X bits in sections 6.4 and 6.5 in a strange way, at least > compared to other fields and the significance of these two bits: > - if 0, there is no need to send the optional packet part (but may > be sent for other reasons) > - if 1, the optional packet part containing the P/X bit must be > sent > > This solution is optimized for the case when X = 0 and P = 0. > This is in contrast with RFC 3095 A.1.4 that says both P and X are > application dependent, even though X is expected to be 0 in most > cases. > > If P/X is 1, the optional packet part containing the P/X bit must be > included, even though the value is not changed. This means one > additional octet in EXT-3 for P bit and one additional octet in RTP > dynamic part for X bit. As a compensation, the solution may save one > octet in RTP dynamic part for X bit if 0; however, even this is > unlikely to happen, as the TS_STRIDE is most probably sent in the > establishment. > (As the value of P/X is not expected to change during the lifetime of > the packet flow, as said in RFC 3095 A.1.4, only the establishment > period is of concern.) > > In case a CID is reused with the same X=1 value as of the previous > packet flow, it must be updated, even though it is not changed - > because of the value 1. Even if X=0, the optional part in the RTP > dynamic part is probably sent due to TS_STRIDE establishment - unless > it is also the same. > > What is the advantage then? Is P=1 and/or X=1 really that unlikely > that it is worth deferring from the clean way of updating other fields > not function of SN to save one octet per thousands of packets? EXT-3 > must be quite common to cope with irregularities, therefore I'm not > quite comfortable with the idea to update a field based on its value > instead of being changed, as for all other fields not function of SN > (except RTP M bit, but that is reasonably explained in RFC > 3095 A.1.4). This seems to be additional complexity mainly to send > more bytes in some cases. > > Looking forward to reading your opinion and comments. > > Best regards, > Zacco > > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc _______________________________________________ Rohc mailing list Rohc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
- [rohc] Update of RTP P and X bits Lajos Zaccomer (IJ/ETH)
- [rohc] Announce SIP/SDP Static Dictionarty in Ret… carriez
- Re: [rohc] Announce SIP/SDP Static Dictionarty in… carriez
- RE: [rohc] Update of RTP P and X bits Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB)