From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Wed Apr 11 02:17:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19AE21F8630 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:17:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Glq8tyxisLl0 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284CD21F863D for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C75D76218A; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:17:03 -0700 (PDT) To: ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com, kristofer.sandlund@ericsson.com, wes@mti-systems.com, martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu, carl.knutsson@effnet.com From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20120411091703.C75D76218A@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Cc: rohc@ietf.org, rohc_team@dialine.fr, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [rohc] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5225 (3185) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:17:41 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5225, "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5225&eid=3185 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: FWX Section: page 64 Original Text ------------- rtp(profile_value, ts_stride_value, time_stride_value, reorder_ratio_value) { UNCOMPRESSED { ENFORCE((profile_value == PROFILE_RTP_0101) || (profile_value == PROFILE_RTP_0107)); rtp_version =:= uncompressed_value(2, 0) [ 2 ]; Corrected Text -------------- rtp(profile_value, ts_stride_value, time_stride_value, reorder_ratio_value) { UNCOMPRESSED { ENFORCE((profile_value == PROFILE_RTP_0101) || (profile_value == PROFILE_RTP_0107)); rtp_version =:= uncompressed_value(2, 2) [ 2 ]; Notes ----- rtp_version is set to 2, not to zero. See RTP Header Fields page 115 : Version This field is expected to have the value two and the field is therefore classified as STATIC-KNOWN. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) -------------------------------------- Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite Publication Date : April 2008 Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Robust Header Compression Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From kristofer.sandlund@ericsson.com Wed Apr 11 02:57:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA1621F850D for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:57:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id huBSZCg0GgHD for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE4021F850C for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:57:30 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7b07ae000006839-09-4f855589c482 Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 69.9D.26681.985558F4; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.2]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:57:28 +0200 From: Kristofer Sandlund To: RFC Errata System , "ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com" , "wes@mti-systems.com" , "martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu" , "carl.knutsson@effnet.com" Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:57:27 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5225 (3185) Thread-Index: Ac0Xw/FmJE4mQuNySDGqLyd3VoqyuAABQB2A Message-ID: <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD104A84CDE06F@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <20120411091703.C75D76218A@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20120411091703.C75D76218A@rfc-editor.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" , "rohc_team@dialine.fr" Subject: Re: [rohc] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5225 (3185) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:57:31 -0000 Hi, I agree with this errata. That's an evil typo that I must have made in the draft that went undetected through the reviews.=20 I'd recommend setting the errata as "Verified", whoever has permission to edit that one. /Kristofer at den 11 april 2012 11:17, RFC Errata System wrote : > The following errata report has been submitted for > RFC5225, "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): > Profiles for=20 > RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". >=20 > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D5225&eid=3D3185 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: FWX >=20 > Section: page 64 >=20 > Original Text > ------------- > rtp(profile_value, ts_stride_value, time_stride_value, > reorder_ratio_value) { UNCOMPRESSED { > ENFORCE((profile_value =3D=3D PROFILE_RTP_0101) || > (profile_value =3D=3D PROFILE_RTP_0107)); rtp_version =3D:=3D > uncompressed_value(2, 0) [ 2 ]; >=20 > Corrected Text > -------------- > rtp(profile_value, ts_stride_value, time_stride_value, > reorder_ratio_value) { UNCOMPRESSED { > ENFORCE((profile_value =3D=3D PROFILE_RTP_0101) || > (profile_value =3D=3D PROFILE_RTP_0107)); rtp_version =3D:=3D > uncompressed_value(2, 2) [ 2 ]; >=20 > Notes > ----- > rtp_version is set to 2, not to zero. See RTP Header > Fields=20 > page 115 : Version This field is expected to have > the=20 > value two and the field is therefore classified as > STATIC-KNOWN.=20 >=20 > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If > necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it > should be verified or=20 > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > (IESG)=20 > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if > necessary.=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) > -------------------------------------- > Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 > (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite > Publication Date : April 2008 > Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Robust Header Compression > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG= From rohc_team@dialine.fr Wed Apr 11 03:49:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76CF21F862B for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:49:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TQXJAwzOfFLK for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp6-g21.free.fr (smtp6-g21.free.fr [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB97321F8629 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [88.185.172.218]) by smtp6-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17453822E4; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:48:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F85618F.8060408@dialine.fr> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:48:47 +0200 From: RoHC Team User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kristofer Sandlund References: <20120411091703.C75D76218A@rfc-editor.org> <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD104A84CDE06F@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD104A84CDE06F@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120411-0, 11/04/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" , "rohc_team@dialine.fr" , "wes@mti-systems.com" , "ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com" , "martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu" , RFC Errata System Subject: Re: [rohc] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5225 (3185) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: rohc_team@dialine.fr List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:49:03 -0000 Hi Christopher, Thank you for your quick reply. Best regards, FWX. Le 11/04/2012 11:57, Kristofer Sandlund a écrit : > Hi, > > I agree with this errata. That's an evil typo that I must have made > in the draft that went undetected through the reviews. > I'd recommend setting the errata as "Verified", whoever has permission > to edit that one. > > /Kristofer > > at den 11 april 2012 11:17, RFC Errata System wrote : >> The following errata report has been submitted for >> RFC5225, "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): >> Profiles for >> RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5225&eid=3185 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Editorial >> Reported by: FWX >> >> Section: page 64 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> rtp(profile_value, ts_stride_value, time_stride_value, >> reorder_ratio_value) { UNCOMPRESSED { >> ENFORCE((profile_value == PROFILE_RTP_0101) || >> (profile_value == PROFILE_RTP_0107)); rtp_version =:= >> uncompressed_value(2, 0) [ 2 ]; >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> rtp(profile_value, ts_stride_value, time_stride_value, >> reorder_ratio_value) { UNCOMPRESSED { >> ENFORCE((profile_value == PROFILE_RTP_0101) || >> (profile_value == PROFILE_RTP_0107)); rtp_version =:= >> uncompressed_value(2, 2) [ 2 ]; >> >> Notes >> ----- >> rtp_version is set to 2, not to zero. See RTP Header >> Fields >> page 115 : Version This field is expected to have >> the >> value two and the field is therefore classified as >> STATIC-KNOWN. >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If >> necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it >> should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party >> (IESG) >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if >> necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 >> (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite >> Publication Date : April 2008 >> Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Robust Header Compression >> Area : Transport >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG > From cabo@tzi.org Wed Apr 11 05:20:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7CBD11E808F for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:20:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pNttNQ7p2rBE for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BA621F8526 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:20:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3BCK6JK018903; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:20:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dynamic-218-h.informatik.uni-bremen.de (dynamic-218-h.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.218.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6806E35D; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:20:06 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD104A84CDE06F@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:20:06 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <907C924E-3F57-465C-855B-7BD4703802ED@tzi.org> References: <20120411091703.C75D76218A@rfc-editor.org> <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD104A84CDE06F@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> To: Kristofer Sandlund X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" , "wes@mti-systems.com" , "ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com" , "martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu" , "rohc_team@dialine.fr" , RFC Errata System Subject: Re: [rohc] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5225 (3185) X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:20:20 -0000 On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:57, Kristofer Sandlund wrote: > I'd recommend setting the errata as "Verified", whoever has permission > to edit that one. Indeed. To corroborate (grepping for rtp_version): rfc5225.txt:3570: rtp_version =3D:=3D uncompressed_value(2, 0) [ 2 = ]; rfc5225.txt:4354: rtp_version =3D:=3D uncompressed_value(2, 2) = [ 2 ]; rfc5225.txt:4391: rtp_version =3D:=3D uncompressed_value(2, 2) = [ 2 ]; rfc5225.txt:5137: rtp_version =3D:=3D uncompressed_value(2, 2) = [ 2 ]; rfc5225.txt:5173: rtp_version =3D:=3D uncompressed_value(2, 2) = [ 2 ]; Very clearly, line 3570 is the odd one out here and needs to be fixed, = as RTP Version 0 is neither defined nor in use. rohc_team:=20 Thanks for finding this! (If I still were rohc WG chair, I would ask you for your common name at = this point, as it is customary to use wallet names on IETF lists.) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From klaus.warnke@acticom.de Thu Apr 12 09:13:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9834F21F8638 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:13:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DxKO8p+WV+dX for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acticom-networks.com (mail.acticom-networks.com [87.106.254.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD3F21F8512 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.acticom-networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1055E1C00F4A for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:13:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at acticom-networks.com Received: from mail.acticom-networks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.acticom-networks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hkHGWLyMGhRL for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:13:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from godfather.bln.acticom.de (backupsrv [87.139.237.181]) by mail.acticom-networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F5C1C00F46 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:13:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.33.27] (tornado.bln.acticom.de [192.168.33.27]) by godfather.bln.acticom.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A3AF3AC2 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:13:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F86FF29.5050900@acticom.de> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:13:29 +0200 From: Klaus Warnke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rohc@ietf.org References: <20120411091703.C75D76218A@rfc-editor.org> <61D017C9E2225D4A974A141907F3CD104A84CDE06F@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> <907C924E-3F57-465C-855B-7BD4703802ED@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <907C924E-3F57-465C-855B-7BD4703802ED@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [rohc] RoHCv2 ipv4_innermost_irregular question X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:13:46 -0000 Hello! I could not determine, where the attribute ip_id_behavior_innermost.UVALUE is bound in this format (ipv4 encoding method): COMPRESSED ipv4_innermost_irregular { ENFORCE(is_innermost == 1); ip_id =:= ip_id_enc_irreg(ip_id_behavior_innermost.UVALUE) [ 0, 16 ]; } In the ipv4_outer_irregular format the ip id behavior is defined in DEFAULT as static. I understand here, that the irregular chain (and therefore CO formats) could not be used, if the ip-id behavior of an outer IP header has changed. Then I need a co_repair/IR with dynamic chain. But if the innermost ip id behavior changes, I can use co_common. Then the ip id is either send within co_common (in seq/seq swapped case) or within irregular chain (in rand/zero) case. Therefore maybe the line ENFORCE(ip_id_behavior_innermost.UVALUE == ip_id_behavior_value); is missed here, to bind the attribute with the parameter value? If not, could please someone explain, where the binding works? Thanks and Regards, Klaus -- Klaus Warnke klaus.warnke@acticom.de http://www.acticom.de Tel +49-30-4849.6891 acticom GmbH Schwedter Str. 9b, 10119 Berlin, Germany Managing Directors: Olaf Kehrer, Gerrit Schulte Commercial Register: Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 73245 VAT-ID DE205131766 From klaus.warnke@acticom.de Fri Apr 13 07:57:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rohc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EDDB21F863F for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:57:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zbTn0g5W7AwA for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acticom-networks.com (mail.acticom-networks.com [87.106.254.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867EC21F84F0 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.acticom-networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F391C00F4A for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:57:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at acticom-networks.com Received: from mail.acticom-networks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.acticom-networks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r-GCE9WB4p0B for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:57:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from godfather.bln.acticom.de (backupsrv [87.139.237.181]) by mail.acticom-networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D5F1C00F46 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:57:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.33.27] (tornado.bln.acticom.de [192.168.33.27]) by godfather.bln.acticom.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2550CF3E8E for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:57:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F883ECA.6040209@acticom.de> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:57:14 +0200 From: Klaus Warnke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "rohc@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [rohc] rfc5225 RoHCv2 ipv4_outer_irregular format question X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:57:20 -0000 Hello In the encoding method ipv4() in the format ipv4_outer_irregular{}: COMPRESSED ipv4_outer_irregular { ENFORCE(is_innermost == 0); ip_id =:= ip_id_enc_irreg(ip_id_behavior_outer.UVALUE) [ 0, 16 ]; tos_tc =:= static_or_irreg(outer_ip_flag, 8) [ 0, 8 ]; ttl_hopl =:= static_or_irreg(outer_ip_flag, 8) [ 0, 8 ]; } I could not determine how the value of the IP-ID in case of ip_id_behavior_outer is either IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_SEQUENTIAL or IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_SEQUENTIAL_SWAPPED is computed. The encoding method ip_id_enc_irreg() is used to handle the IP-ID here. But for the IP-ID behavior cases stated above I can not figure out, how it is computed. Did I oversee something? Maybe the line ip_id =:= inferred_sequential_ip_id [ 0 ]; is absent here? But it could not be, because the English text definition talks about ip_id_behavior_innermost. ip_id_enc_irreg(behavior) { UNCOMPRESSED { ip_id [ 16 ]; } COMPRESSED ip_id_seq { ENFORCE(behavior == IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_SEQUENTIAL); +++ ip_id =:= inferred_sequential_ip_id [ 0 ]; } COMPRESSED ip_id_seq_swapped { ENFORCE(behavior == IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_SEQUENTIAL_SWAPPED); +++ ip_id =:= inferred_sequential_ip_id [ 0 ]; } COMPRESSED ip_id_rand { ENFORCE(behavior == IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM); ip_id =:= irregular(16) [ 16 ]; } COMPRESSED ip_id_zero { ENFORCE(behavior == IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_ZERO); ip_id =:= uncompressed_value(16, 0) [ 0 ]; } } If not, could please someone explain, how the IP-ID is computed for the outer headers? Or in other words: If I receive an ipv4_outer_irregular{} format, how I get the IP-ID, if its behavior is sequential or sequential swapped, i.e. no IP-ID bits are received within the irregular chain. Thanks and regards, Klaus -- Klaus Warnke klaus.warnke@acticom.de http://www.acticom.de Tel +49-30-4849.6891 acticom GmbH Schwedter Str. 9b, 10119 Berlin, Germany Managing Directors: Olaf Kehrer, Gerrit Schulte Commercial Register: Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 73245 VAT-ID DE205131766