RE: [rohc] Empty CSRC list issue in IR packet.

Hi Lars-Erik,

While I can see that the CC field does provide enough information to allow
the CSRC list to be optional, I think that 3095 is clear that it is not
optional.  

IMHO the consensus of the discussion a few weeks ago was reached because it
was felt that the implementer's guide should not change something that is
clear and interoperable as written in the rfc.  As Kristofer mentioned,
there have been 4 interops where the byte of zero has been included and
worked without a problem.  Consequently, it was felt that it should be left
as in the rfc (to minimize confusion and so that current implementations
remain interoperable) but could be mentioned in the implementer's guide in a
section for future changes/enhancements e.g. when going to draft standard.

Best regards,

Abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) [mailto:lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:06 AM
> To: 'Kristofer Sandlund'
> Cc: 'rohc@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [rohc] Empty CSRC list issue in IR packet.
> 
> Kristofer,
> 
> We did discuss this, and it was not included in the guide without
> first being brought to the list. We CAN decide how to interpret this,
> my way of seeing it is that CC is the same field as in RTP, thus CC=0
> means there are no CSRC's. If I am the only one with that opinion,
> then we'll change it in the impl guide. Personally I just think it
> is non-logic to send an empty list when there is a counter indicating
> that the list is empty.
> 
> Just my 2 öre!
> /L-E
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kristofer Sandlund [mailto:kristofer.sandlund@effnet.com]
> > Sent: den 1 september 2003 17:59
> > To: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
> > Cc: Ghyslain Pelletier (LU/EAB); Remi Pelland; 'rohc@ietf.org'
> > Subject: 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 :)
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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