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 :)

 From RFC3095:

5.7.7.3. says:
       / Generic extension header list /   variable length

	Generic extension header list: Encoded according to section
      	 5.8.6.1, with all header items present in uncompressed form.

and 5.7.7.6. says
       /      Generic CSRC list        /  variable length
    	Generic CSRC list: CSRC list encoded according to section
           5.8.6.1, with all CSRC items present.

So by reading this, I cannot see how RFC3095 can be interpreted as 
having CSRC being possibly 0 bytes, while the extension header list must 
always be at least one byte (they have a practically identical definition).
With this in mind, it seems very much like the implementers guide is 
redefining the text in 3095 which seems like a bad thing to do.

Regards,
	Kristofer Sandlund, Effnet AB

Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
>>2) Section 4.3.3 of the implementer's guide should be removed.
> 
> 
> I do not agree, as we have already agreed on this interpretation of 3095.
> Personally, I would not be sure about the interpretation from 3095 only,
> so the implementer's guide should make this clear. Therefore, we agreed
> on the obvious interpretation, as currently stated in 4.3.3.
> 
> /L-E
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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