RE: [rohc] TCP/IP EPIC profile

"Hongbin Liao (Intl Staffing)" <i-hbliao@microsoft.com> Thu, 14 March 2002 11:44 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA15113 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 06:44:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA19980; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 06:42:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA19945 for <rohc@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 06:42:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail-jpn.microsoft.com (mail-jpn.microsoft.com [207.46.71.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA15086 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 06:42:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jpn-imc-01.fareast.corp.microsoft.com ([157.60.4.29]) by mail-jpn.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:41:49 +0900
Received: from 157.60.4.29 by jpn-imc-01.fareast.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:41:48 +0900
Received: from bjs-msg-01.fareast.corp.microsoft.com ([157.60.72.120]) by jpn-imc-01.fareast.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:41:48 +0900
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary"
Subject: RE: [rohc] TCP/IP EPIC profile
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:41:47 +0800
Message-ID: <F4C77846CEE593418BE5AB7B6A83111E046521B5@bjs-msg-01.fareast.corp.microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [rohc] TCP/IP EPIC profile
Thread-Index: AcHLP9LhaAurvtW2SNSJHAjyxjSusgACmAQw
From: "Hongbin Liao (Intl Staffing)" <i-hbliao@microsoft.com>
To: "West, Mark (ITN)" <mark.a.west@roke.co.uk>, "Per Synnergren (EPL)" <Per.Synnergren@epl.ericsson.se>
Cc: <rohc@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2002 11:41:48.0905 (UTC) FILETIME=[39FF7D90:01C1CB4D]
Sender: rohc-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: rohc-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org

Hi, Mark
    I'am refining the EPIC TCP/IP profile these days. I am not so clear about the TCP options processing in the profile. The question is how EPIC handle multi-occurances TCP NOP options since we found, for at least two popular TCP/IP stack implementations, there are at least 3~4, or more, occurances of TCP NOP options in one TCP/IP packet when Timestamp and/or SACK options are used. Would u give some comments and/or examples on it?
 
Thanks!
Hongbin L.
14/03/2002




> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Mark (ITN) [mailto:mark.a.west@roke.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:03 PM
> To: Per Synnergren (EPL)
> Cc: 'rohc@ietf.org'
> Subject: Re: [rohc] TCP/IP EPIC profile
>
>
>
> While I don't pretend that it contains all the answers, you
> could have a
> look at
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-west-tcpip-field-
> behavior-01.txt
>
> Certainly where there are correlations that I've missed, it would be
> good if folks could point these out...
>
> Having said that, I don't know of any studies of the strength of
> correlation or its effect on compression.  I suppose that's
> what we're
> in the process of doing at the moment?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>
>
> Per Synnergren (EPL) wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > 
> >
> > A question "out of the blue"...
> >
> > 
> >
> > Hongbin Liao wrote:
> >
> >     1. whether can TCP/IP EPIC profile correctly describe
> the behavior
> >     of TCP? Or, whether EPIC is powerful enough to describe the
> >     complicated behavior of TCP/IP?
> >
> >         In EPIC, fields are assumed to be independent from
> each other.
> >     Once each field's behaviors are described well, the
> whole protocol's
> >     behaviors are also well-studied. However, in practice,
> fields in a
> >     protocol may not behave independently completely from
> each other.
> >     There may be some connections (or causality) among
> several fields.
> >     For example, most TCP traffics only contain one-way traffic (WWW
> >     browsing, FTP downloading, etc.), i.e., only SEQ changes on the
> >     forward path (from server to client) and only ACK changes on the
> >     backward path (from client to server). The ACK on the
> forward path
> >     and SEQ on the backward path remain constant. However, in TCP/IP
> >     EPIC profile, the probabilities for SEQ and ACK are specified
> >     seperately:
> >
> >     It is obvious that knowledge about "TCP inter-field correlation"
> >     could be useful in order to increase the performance of
> the header
> >     compression. Has anyone heard of/or performed thorough
> studies of
> >     the cross-correlation between TCP-fields?
> >
> >     
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark A. West, Consultant Engineer
> Roke Manor Research Ltd., Romsey, Hants.  SO51 0ZN
> Phone +44 (0)1794 833311   Fax  +44 (0)1794 833433
>
> (Yes, I do know that my disclaimer is in an attachment.  And, no, I
> didn't ask for it to be that way)
>