From kishore_r_s@yahoo.co.in Tue May 22 23:16:26 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 DC97121F84DF for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 23:16:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 jy-YPUCHY9AK for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 23:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm22-vm7.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com (nm22-vm7.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com [106.10.151.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 51ABC21F84D5 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 23:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [106.10.166.112] by nm22.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 May 2012 06:16:15 -0000 Received: from [106.10.151.239] by tm1.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 May 2012 06:16:15 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 May 2012 06:16:15 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 613156.36470.bm@omp1023.mail.sg3.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 3136 invoked by uid 60001); 23 May 2012 06:16:15 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.in; s=s1024; t=1337753775; bh=MmBHtoKU/GYZCpdt/1P8WBpGD3J5VCRr+WOLckKkxsw=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dy8Pz9mA0/h+2SEVV57HAM4Qy1nUFfdujdF+x1buF3ihZWMqBNt3E+6ZNHj7sXpiyYmAchhFaWB0P/aSh1CVrRmdhbcZNBfwyosYggquSE4ApCf0mAxbV57I8HqWzrIRhKjG2E0LHQRmqORWUAV/xsFOrLp6YBJK2nkN8yscRwU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.in; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=0qVfVcrZg34WseXzBwGwYW4suzb4KOxFsXc2Q2iBmXyGD0BjkmtxZMvdvuLMTc70Rb40GqF6rodv9+JPw+yYPkn11DIH86XiGWlYUSfZKsiiwuj0sz4J5uitzH6Ic0TYXH+TTGySowgr+x4iq9R3GW0otfGRBBzqyAxYCdnRwM4=; X-YMail-OSG: ws8DVbMVM1mfm94CqYJyutujxv9nI6__w6SIbrrwtdqtOib oGay6Fvw6qoFuK0RhPWQvf0qGLIOg1X1snDGPXtPQ9KHhBfb0.r.bQxheA1o iO2MtGAg4kMH9J.AYboi1z9.5lt5DuGS8iWLjDo6bSYbnUAYG1uA3GDItzII Zpfm.kWV72gKZobZvzvH8H.sfqvzwDlknj0d_otPf_aqFJudyTmQMBS1vC.u G1bV91KAm6_58nUpGyp1nZCxc.sPTkhiO1r1xcMV0jr2rVbxGN6Cf9h9QoR4 dnMeB2NynRrdkiUD2Gu9kWbicUvz1Hl0Jdi4XN3kO9qQSIvBPX.S1Pdsrj1d dJXrOMVIhYS5fe0jilPcg957Yw9bWAhqndBJIZINxJn7UmhuvdIDkeo2aIcg .8OyclVyP2AGBaf3z7QRH4USRhMFjp7LPpQiZkg-- Received: from [125.21.230.132] by web193205.mail.sg3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 14:16:15 SGT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524 Message-ID: <1337753775.70884.YahooMailNeo@web193205.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:16:15 +0800 (SGT) From: kishore sowdi To: "rohc@ietf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-724232154-148890994-1337753775=:70884" Subject: [rohc] Question regarding SIGCOMP X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: kishore sowdi List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 06:17:54 -0000 ---724232154-148890994-1337753775=:70884 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi ,=0A=0AI am using SIGCOMP to compress/decompress SIP application.=0A=0AS= IP Client=A0is uploading UVDM bytecode in all messages=A0it sends to server= .=0ABelow is the message exchange between SIP Client and Server,=0A=A0=0A= =0AClient=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Server=0A1) REG=A0(Client sends bytecode) ---->= =0A=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(2)=A0<----=A0 401(Server sends byte= code)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=0A=A0=0A3) = REG=A0 (Client sends bytecode) ---->=A0=A0=A0=A0=0A=A0=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(4) <----- 200 OK (Server sends byte code)=A0=A0=0A=0A5) SUB= SCRIBE (Client sends bytecode)----->=0A=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (6= )=A0<----- 200 OK (Server sends partial state identifier )=0A=0A---> At (6)= , server tries to access state, by giving partial state identifiers, which = it gave in state create at step (4) as per "UDVM Execution trace".... =0A--= -> when client receives=A0(6),=A0it is failing to decompress it saying stat= e not found....=0A---> (6) gets re-transmitted many times.....=0A=0AHowever= at (4), server has sent only one STATE-CREATE instruction=A0in bytecode ..= . =0ABut, packet sniffer(wireshark) shows in "UDVM Execution Trace" having = 3 state create requests... =0A=0AMy question is , why there are no 3 STATE-= CREATE instructions in bytecode at (4) ??...=0AI am confused because "UDVM = Execution Trace" having 3 state create requests... and there are no corresp= onding STATE-CREATE instructions at (4)..=0A=0ASince Client has not receive= d 3 STATE-CREATE's in bytecode at (4), it has not created those states and = suddenly at (6), when server refers to that state giving "partial state id"= , client fails to match it to the state.=0A=0APlease help in identifying th= e issue...=0A=0ARegards,=0AKishore ---724232154-148890994-1337753775=:70884 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi ,
 
I am using SIGCOMP to compress/decompress SIP ap= plication.
 
SIP Client is uploading UVDM bytecode in al= l messages it sends to server.
Below is the message exchange between SIP Client= and Server,
 
 
Client        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;     =       = ;                &nb= sp;     &n= bsp;     <= SPAN style=3D"RIGHT: auto" class=3Dtab>        Server
1) REG (Client sends bytecode) ---->
 
 &n= bsp;     &= nbsp;                     &nbs= p;     &nb= sp;                &= nbsp;     =            &nb= sp;     &n= bsp;          (2) <----  401(Server sends = byte code)=                 &nbs= p;     &nb= sp;          &nb= sp;     &n= bsp;    =
 
3) REG&n= bsp; (Client sends bytecode) ---->    
&= nbsp;
 &n= bsp;     &= nbsp;                     &nbs= p;     &nb= sp;                &= nbsp;     =            &nb= sp;     &n= bsp;          (4) <----- 200 OK (Server sends byte c= ode) =  
 
5) SUBSCRIBE (Client sends bytecode)----->
 
 &n= bsp;     &= nbsp;     =                 &nbs= p;     &nb= sp;                     &nbs= p;            &nb= sp;     &n= bsp;         (6) <----- 200 OK (Server sends partial = state identifier )
 
---> At (6), server tries to access state, by= giving partial state identifiers, which it gave in state create at step (4= ) as per "UDVM Execution trace"....
---> when client receives (6), it i= s failing to decompress it saying state not found....
---> (6) gets re-transmitted many times.....
 
However at (4), server has sent only one STATE-CREATE instruction = ;in bytecode ...
But, packet sniffer(wireshark) shows in "UDVM Ex= ecution Trace" having 3 state create requests...
 
My question is , why there are no 3 STATE-CREATE instructions in bytec= ode at (4) ??...
I am confused because "UDVM Execution Trace" hav= ing 3 state create requests... and there are no corresponding STATE-CREATE = instructions at (4)..
 
Since Client has not received 3 STATE-CREATE's i= n bytecode at (4), it has not created those states and suddenly at (6), whe= n server refers to that state giving "partial state id", client fails to ma= tch it to the state.
 
Please help in identifying the issue...
 
Regards,
Kishore
---724232154-148890994-1337753775=:70884-- From cabo@tzi.org Wed May 23 01:15:26 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 B85BC21F84E1 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 01:15:26 -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 7Bw743XDA-Xi for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 01:15:25 -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 208C721F8491 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 01:15:14 -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 q4N8F6IL010392; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:15:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (reingewinn.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.218.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94B97539; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:15:06 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <1337753775.70884.YahooMailNeo@web193205.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:15:04 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <55F908DC-52BC-4A54-8367-039F00C15B40@tzi.org> References: <1337753775.70884.YahooMailNeo@web193205.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> To: kishore sowdi X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [rohc] Question regarding SIGCOMP 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, 23 May 2012 08:15:26 -0000 Kishore, your diagram does not really show the important parts: -- which states are being created -- which states are being referenced It is a bit hard to make out from that what is going on. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From kishore_r_s@yahoo.co.in Wed May 23 01:50:08 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 D044021F8476 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 01:50:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.726, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 wTPr020-6ZQK for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 01:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm34-vm7.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com (nm34-vm7.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com [106.10.151.246]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D9E8421F84AF for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 01:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [106.10.166.117] by nm34.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 May 2012 08:50:02 -0000 Received: from [106.10.151.155] by tm6.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 May 2012 08:50:02 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1009.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 May 2012 08:50:02 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 418120.74426.bm@omp1009.mail.sg3.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 48142 invoked by uid 60001); 23 May 2012 08:50:00 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.in; s=s1024; t=1337763000; bh=eYmFOQJcK1/O6M8ddrhiFw7MLcCwmexkdc5iBJA+pHc=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XvnHGZuT/OK18AZnwr9bErYxUqTCY+TwhXZH5dE+6AwdIChXwjChPL0VC4AK8aVEF+4hbvvQhrYeBe+lJ+CorHPFLVbjEwGQX5/TXqNPkCL4mvbWRn7zkxJKUXO27nA5afxIBz4emD8DBTge+7N7TR/nOojZFbYs/Ix9JyTX2wE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.in; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GWkIHdYJyup5PNcWlyhzz1t/Mx3nS+e6wGobuj/XZj0LYdJzzMf3ar781iSXqtBhJLjKhT8RbxcE0iRTxHudL4t2eYziHZ2n8qRSb6KZNCduv2h1jPZ+vnoZV0dvNMaHPcnhn6ZNMTRMLZy09F61LrOIYI/6qAdpzB3Ei7lGlrA=; X-YMail-OSG: VEdUeFEVM1nCr589_foHHcleZVjO4PtKH3dSgYJ1M_zj_Vc GdooQ6FZ9_l4zifBNg4uq6Auk2EbzMb10iTTPWAiYta_xv._OuVn4QhGYQtw PunsI2V3alPQJCcPGq7PP.SzTs98TrViv7uxs7MPlXGU_vsinXdVTo0in98D wNOgXLzlJs1r0Q1P3vfiLSHinbHLS8K.Ep81DVI.g7JCVluqCkYleLMC4r9S hRDbHYH7077_i_iqcigfhmh9gSFtIZRERufCl.8aes7KnW2k43aTEVI61fyn KbAk25AH.uxBLcLv6xT16oCyTIxxlC8b3b7vqF8l0StdwEFG2XmE0_QY2UUS iA27T.IE_p0N0dx2XgTieKBznmCaSDO4qw3cwiqkZHgecEWaOSGpscpg.3WY xqi6agcTbjUJkLNwhR7_5XsEEhXt1MhlZcR3Ow.LIC6JR1DIkhenCCvs- Received: from [125.21.230.68] by web193202.mail.sg3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 16:50:00 SGT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524 References: <1337753775.70884.YahooMailNeo@web193205.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> <55F908DC-52BC-4A54-8367-039F00C15B40@tzi.org> Message-ID: <1337763000.24839.YahooMailNeo@web193202.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 16:50:00 +0800 (SGT) From: kishore sowdi To: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <55F908DC-52BC-4A54-8367-039F00C15B40@tzi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-697551913-407089552-1337763000=:24839" Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [rohc] Question regarding SIGCOMP X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: kishore sowdi List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:50:09 -0000 ---697551913-407089552-1337763000=:24839 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Carsten,=0A=A0=0AWith reference to my earlier diagram, I am describing s= tate create and state access made by server.=0A=A0=0AIn message (4),=A0I se= e 3 state creates made by server=0A[-]UDVM execution trace=0A=A0no_of_state= _create 3=0A=A0### Creating state ###=0A=A0Partial state identifier: AEDBAB= 80652A=0A=A0### Creating state ###=0A=A0Partial state identifier: AAA2B32CE= 212=0A=A0### Creating state ###=0A=A0Partial state identifier: =0A=A0=0A=A0= In message (6), I see state access(referenced) using partial state id made = by server.=0A=A0[-]Signaling Compression=0A=A0 Returned_feedback item: 03= =0A=A0 Partial state identifier: AEDBAB80652A=0A=A0 Remaining SigComp messa= ge bytes: 280=0A=A0 ### Accessing state ###=0A=A0 Partial state identifier:= AEDBAB80652A=0A=A0=0AIn message (4), =0A- I can see 3 state creates as par= t of "UDVM Execution trace" as decipted by Wireshark (Network Protocol Anal= yzer)=A0.=0A- Why did not server send these three state create requests usi= ng STATE-CREATE=A0as part of UDVM byte code?=0A=A0=0AIn message (6),=0A- St= ate having AEDBAB80652A id is referenced (state access) by server.=0A- My S= IP Client says, state with such an=A0identifier not found and as a result S= IP Client fails to decompress the message.=0A=A0=0AI feel,=A0during (4), If= state create requests were made eplicitly using STATE-CREATE, then my SIP = Client would have created those states.=0Aand during (6), decompression wou= ld be successful.=0A=A0=0ARegards,=0AKishore=0A=A0 =0A=A0=0AFrom: Carsten B= ormann =0ATo: kishore sowdi =0ACc: = "rohc@ietf.org" =0ASent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 1:45 PM=0AS= ubject: Re: [rohc] Question regarding SIGCOMP=0A=0AKishore,=0A=0Ayour diagr= am does not really show the important parts:=0A-- which states are being cr= eated=0A-- which states are being referenced=0A=0AIt is a bit hard to make = out from that what is going on.=0A=0AGr=FC=DFe, Carsten=0A=0A______________= _________________________________=0ARohc mailing list=0ARohc@ietf.org=0Ahtt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc=0A=0A----- Forwarded Message -----= =0AFrom: kishore sowdi =0ATo: "rohc@ietf.org" =0ASent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 11:46 AM=0ASubject: Question re= garding SIGCOMP=0A=0AHi ,=0A=0AI am using SIGCOMP to compress/decompress SI= P application.=0A=0ASIP Client=A0is uploading UVDM bytecode in all messages= =A0it sends to server.=0ABelow is the message exchange between SIP Client a= nd Server,=0A=A0=0A=0AClient=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Server=0A1) REG=A0(Client s= ends bytecode) ---->=0A=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(2)=A0<----=A0 = 401(Server sends byte code)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=0A=A0=0A3) REG=A0 (Client sends bytecode) ---->=A0=A0=A0=A0=0A=A0= =0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(4) <----- 200 OK (Server sends byte co= de)=A0=A0=0A=0A5) SUBSCRIBE (Client sends bytecode)----->=0A=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (6)=A0<----- 200 OK (Server sends partial state identifi= er )=0A=0A---> At (6), server tries to access state, by giving partial stat= e identifiers, which it gave in state create at step (4) as per "UDVM Execu= tion trace".... =0A---> when client receives=A0(6),=A0it is failing to deco= mpress it saying state not found....=0A---> (6) gets re-transmitted many ti= mes.....=0A=0AHowever at (4), server has sent only one STATE-CREATE instruc= tion=A0in bytecode ... =0ABut, packet sniffer(wireshark) shows in "UDVM Exe= cution Trace" having 3 state create requests... =0A=0AMy question is , why = there are no 3 STATE-CREATE instructions in bytecode at (4) ??...=0AI am co= nfused because "UDVM Execution Trace" having 3 state create requests... and= there are no corresponding STATE-CREATE instructions at (4)..=0A=0ASince C= lient has not received 3 STATE-CREATE's in bytecode at (4), it has not crea= ted those states and suddenly at (6), when server refers to that state givi= ng "partial state id", client fails to match it to the state.=0A=0APlease h= elp in identifying the issue...=0A=0ARegards,=0AKishore ---697551913-407089552-1337763000=:24839 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Carsten,
 
With reference to my= earlier diagram, I am describing state create and state access made by ser= ver.
 
In message (4), I = see 3 state creates made by server
[-]UDVM execution trace
 = no_of_state_create 3
 ### Creating state ###
 Partial state= identifier: AEDBAB80652A
 ### Creating state ###<= BR> Partial state identifier: AAA2B32CE212
 ### Creating state= ###
 Partial state identifier:
 
 In message (6), I see state access(referenced) using partial stat= e id made by server.
 [-]Signaling Compression
  Returne= d_feedback item: 03
  Partial state identifier: AEDBAB80652A
  Remaining SigComp message bytes:= 280
  ### Accessing state ###
  Partial state identifier: = AEDBAB80652A
 
In message (4),
- I can see 3 state creates as part of "UDVM Exe= cution trace" as decipted by Wireshark (Network Protocol Analyzer) .
- Why did not server send these three state crea= te requests using STATE-CREATE as part of UDVM byte code?
 
In message (6),
- State having AEDBAB80652A id = is referenced (state access) by server.
- My SIP Client says, state with such an id= entifier not found and as a result SIP Client fails to decompress the messa= ge.
 
I feel, during (4), If state create request= s were made eplicitly using STATE-CREATE, then my SIP Client would have cre= ated those states.
and during (6), decompression would be successfu= l.
 
Regards,
Kishore
 
 
From:= Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
To: kishore sowdi <kishore_r_s@yahoo.co.in> =
Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" <= ;rohc@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 1:45 PM
Su= bject: Re: [rohc] Question regarding SIGCOMP
Kishore,

your diagram does not really show the important p= arts:
-- which states are being created
-- which states are being ref= erenced

It is a bit hard to make out from that what is going on.
=
Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten

_____________________________________________= __
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
----- Forwarded Message -----<= /DIV>
From: kishore sowdi <kishore_r_s@yahoo.co.in>
To: "rohc@ietf.org" <rohc@ietf.org= >
Sent: Wednesday, 2= 3 May 2012 11:46 AM
Subject:= Question regarding SIGCOMP
Hi ,
 
I am using SIGCOMP to compress/decompress SIP application.
 
SIP Client is uploading UVDM bytecode in all messages it sen= ds to server.
Below is the message exchange between SIP Client and Server,
 
 
Client      &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;       &= nbsp;         &= nbsp;      &nbs= p;         &nbs= p;              = Server
1) REG (Client sends bytecode) ---->
 
                                         &n= bsp;                         = ;          = ;         (2) <----  401(Server = sends byte code)<= /SPAN>         =                  &nb= sp;            = ;     =
 
3) REG  (Client sends bytecode) ---= ->    
 
         &= nbsp;                &nbs= p;         &n= bsp;       = ;          = ;                 &n= bsp;           = ;   (4) <----- 200 OK (Serv= er sends byte code) <= /SPAN> 
 
5) SUBSCRIBE (Client sends bytecode)----->
 
         &= nbsp;      &nbs= p;         &nbs= p;                 &= nbsp;         &= nbsp;                &nbs= p;            = ;  (6) <----- 2<= /SPAN>00 OK (Server= sends partial state identifier )
 
---> At (6), server tries to access state, by giving partial state = identifiers, which it gave in state create at step (4) as per "UDVM Executi= on trace"....
---> when client receives (6), it is failing to decompres= s it saying state not found....
---> (6) gets re-transmitted many times.....
 
However at (4), server has sent only one STATE-CREATE instruction = ;in bytecode ...
But, packet sniffer(wireshark) shows in "UDVM Execution Trace" having = 3 state create requests...
 
My question is , why there are no 3 STATE-CREATE instructions in bytec= ode at (4) ??...
I am confused because "UDVM Execution Trace" having 3 state create req= uests... and there are no corresponding STATE-CREATE instructions at (4)..<= /DIV>
 
Since Client has not received 3 STATE-CREATE's in bytecode at (4), it = has not created those states and suddenly at (6), when server refers to tha= t state giving "partial state id", client fails to match it to the state.
 
Please help in identifying the issue...
 
Regards,
Kishore


---697551913-407089552-1337763000=:24839-- From kishore_r_s@yahoo.co.in Tue May 29 03:11:19 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 056D321F877F for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 03:11:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.814 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.814 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.816, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 7e3uRU9EvesZ for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm2-vm1.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com (nm2-vm1.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com [106.10.148.104]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC23921F85C5 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [106.10.166.115] by nm2.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 May 2012 10:11:15 -0000 Received: from [106.10.150.28] by tm4.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 May 2012 10:11:15 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1029.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 May 2012 10:11:15 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 788218.27363.bm@omp1029.mail.sg3.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 89652 invoked by uid 60001); 29 May 2012 10:11:15 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.in; s=s1024; t=1338286275; bh=Du1TTr/hsRnj4wN/3BYeN3Emrw9lYh/srF97/xluHd8=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tViqShi1BgCQIAR7RigpA9U2bS1hzhF7d1VUjV1oDM0lMKzxMsAmSaXyGI7cWyjrsG9k3UOBhF7z7WwfWZ8TDm5MtHyewlRR9lMQo4Fdg/pH6EC+x0b/SJexuTOds2SMLGlS56dn6yBfmK5l+NJ2r91bpiPOW3M1zdRccSHHnCs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.in; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=IebnUgchvZuuhWictJigzDuJCfZQqG4q3dtUg+8BqBiE+WUGRJMdIzU9NVZk+BXbZm8F+AJ5aK50myx1b93Y6gYPLQIz47ObbEbCOV5SFcmA0rA969QoLbi4lbtnOUdGiWnU2KlGZ8f00RXf0JK/xJ5mVudRDWBvziU03gWe+fc=; X-YMail-OSG: KYmOuskVM1l1IhfYpo8b1FzyHZ.BubvfBU0lTitRag2t1W6 sYQAiYqM5WnHW1nUwLsTC7RzjZkVJljJteRCAW1ZlBnABIGv2g87gvzX23uH .ws.HZClK2LZxcZ2n6r55BuM9O7wgOuAwA2d6mufJHKK7K_ZEHEp2zrXE2Eb zURaa5l4GgTmGFc0AzMqYwdBChAJUAQTSPJEwcfDSO9PfPzbLTqsVy4N7HQ0 3oFpOqZPgw3ch7syt9vQxSROXqTHPfmstQYXRm1Jm8C.1HQSNq0Wq30aZWEK hf7LsrekjL1LGhPsZItNYOrT4ZIvSe4XgiD2NJZt04pHs5tCMap8g8oCEHvY .2Q7UmWTW32nteULyy7_xhGKWEKmspP7g2Zoq4jnX7Gnp.O7VjVlEoRsUiv6 shJJKhVssA89s3oUVB2bSxYEBsI8mnaAcFcDbFCP_wWYoCuQEGnS3XSQ- Received: from [125.21.230.68] by web193204.mail.sg3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 18:11:15 SGT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524 References: <1337753775.70884.YahooMailNeo@web193205.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> <55F908DC-52BC-4A54-8367-039F00C15B40@tzi.org> <1337763000.24839.YahooMailNeo@web193202.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338286275.70328.YahooMailNeo@web193204.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:11:15 +0800 (SGT) From: kishore sowdi To: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <1337763000.24839.YahooMailNeo@web193202.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1044491220-1743198891-1338286275=:70328" Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [rohc] Question regarding SIGCOMP X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: kishore sowdi List-Id: Robust Header Compression List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:11:19 -0000 --1044491220-1743198891-1338286275=:70328 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi List,=0A=A0=0AOne more observation=A0this issue:=0A=A0=0AAfter decompres= sing message (4).. 200 OK For REGISTER,=A0SIP Client creates state=A0having= =A0state identifier (SHA1 result) and stores it.=0A=A0=0ABut at (6).. 200 O= K to SUBSCRIBE, Server references a partial state identifier, which does no= t match with state identifier which is generated as mentioned above.=0A=A0= =0AShould they match ? .=0A=A0=0AAt (4), Server asks to create state using = Partial Id, what does partial id signify here during state create ??=0A[-]U= DVM execution trace=0A=A0no_of_state_create 3=0A=A0### Creating state ###= =0A=A0Partial state identifier: AEDBAB80652A=0A=A0### Creating state ###=0A= =A0Partial state identifier: AAA2B32CE212=0A=A0### Creating state ###=0A=A0= Partial state identifier: =0A=A0Please help in identifying the issue...=0A= =A0=0ARegards,=0AKishore=0A=0AFrom: kishore sowdi = =0ATo: Carsten Bormann =0ACc: "rohc@ietf.org" =0ASent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 2:20 PM=0ASubject: Re: [rohc] Question re= garding SIGCOMP=0A=0A=0AHi Carsten,=0A=A0=0AWith reference to my earlier di= agram, I am describing state create and state access made by server.=0A=A0= =0AIn message (4),=A0I see 3 state creates made by server=0A[-]UDVM executi= on trace=0A=A0no_of_state_create 3=0A=A0### Creating state ###=0A=A0Partial= state identifier: AEDBAB80652A=0A=A0### Creating state ###=0A=A0Partial st= ate identifier: AAA2B32CE212=0A=A0### Creating state ###=0A=A0Partial state= identifier: =0A=A0=0A=A0In message (6), I see state access(referenced) usi= ng partial state id made by server.=0A=A0[-]Signaling Compression=0A=A0 Ret= urned_feedback item: 03=0A=A0 Partial state identifier: AEDBAB80652A=0A=A0 = Remaining SigComp message bytes: 280=0A=A0 ### Accessing state ###=0A=A0 Pa= rtial state identifier: AEDBAB80652A=0A=0AIn message (4), =0A- I can see 3 = state creates as part of "UDVM Execution trace" as decipted by Wireshark (N= etwork Protocol Analyzer)=A0.=0A- Why did not server send these three state= create requests using STATE-CREATE=A0as part of UDVM byte code?=0A=0AIn me= ssage (6),=0A- State having AEDBAB80652A id is referenced (state access) by= server.=0A- My SIP Client says, state with such an=A0identifier not found = and as a result SIP Client fails to decompress the message.=0A=0AI feel,=A0= during (4), If state create requests were made eplicitly using STATE-CREATE= , then my SIP Client would have created those states.=0Aand during (6), dec= ompression would be successful.=0A=0ARegards,=0AKishore=0A=A0 =0A=0AFrom: C= arsten Bormann =0ATo: kishore sowdi = =0ACc: "rohc@ietf.org" =0ASent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 1:4= 5 PM=0ASubject: Re: [rohc] Question regarding SIGCOMP=0A=0AKishore,=0A=0Ayo= ur diagram does not really show the important parts:=0A-- which states are = being created=0A-- which states are being referenced=0A=0AIt is a bit hard = to make out from that what is going on.=0A=0AGr=FC=DFe, Carsten=0A=0A______= _________________________________________=0ARohc mailing list=0ARohc@ietf.o= rg=0Ahttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc=0A=0A----- Forwarded Messag= e -----=0AFrom: kishore sowdi =0ATo: "rohc@ietf.or= g" =0ASent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 11:46 AM=0ASubject: Ques= tion regarding SIGCOMP=0A=0AHi ,=0A=0AI am using SIGCOMP to compress/decomp= ress SIP application.=0A=0ASIP Client=A0is uploading UVDM bytecode in all m= essages=A0it sends to server.=0ABelow is the message exchange between SIP C= lient and Server,=0A=A0=0A=0AClient=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Server=0A1) REG=A0(Cl= ient sends bytecode) ---->=0A=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(2)=A0<--= --=A0 401(Server sends byte code)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=0A=A0=0A3) REG=A0 (Client sends bytecode) ---->=A0=A0=A0=A0= =0A=A0=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(4) <----- 200 OK (Server sends b= yte code)=A0=A0=0A=0A5) SUBSCRIBE (Client sends bytecode)----->=0A=0A=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (6)=A0<----- 200 OK (Server sends partial state id= entifier )=0A=0A---> At (6), server tries to access state, by giving partia= l state identifiers, which it gave in state create at step (4) as per "UDVM= Execution trace".... =0A---> when client receives=A0(6),=A0it is failing t= o decompress it saying state not found....=0A---> (6) gets re-transmitted m= any times.....=0A=0AHowever at (4), server has sent only one STATE-CREATE i= nstruction=A0in bytecode ... =0ABut, packet sniffer(wireshark) shows in "UD= VM Execution Trace" having 3 state create requests... =0A=0AMy question is = , why there are no 3 STATE-CREATE instructions in bytecode at (4) ??...=0AI= am confused because "UDVM Execution Trace" having 3 state create requests.= .. and there are no corresponding STATE-CREATE instructions at (4)..=0A=0AS= ince Client has not received 3 STATE-CREATE's in bytecode at (4), it has no= t created those states and suddenly at (6), when server refers to that stat= e giving "partial state id", client fails to match it to the state.=0A=0APl= ease help in identifying the issue...=0A=0ARegards,=0AKishore --1044491220-1743198891-1338286275=:70328 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi List,
 
One more observation=  this issue:
 
After decompressing = message (4).. 200 OK For REGISTER, SIP Client creates state havin= g state identifier (SHA1 result) and stores it.
 
But at (6).. 200 OK = to SUBSCRIBE, Server references a partial state identifier, which does not = match with state identifier which is generated as mentioned above.
 
Should they match ? = .
 
At (4), Server asks = to create state using Partial Id, what does partial id signify here during = state create ??
[-]UDVM execution tr= ace
 no_of_state_create 3
 ### Creating state ###
 = Partial state identifier: AEDBAB80652A
 ### Creating state #= ##
 Partial state identifier: AAA2B32CE212
&nbs= p;### Creating state ###
 Partial state identifier:
 
<= SPAN style=3D"RIGHT: auto">
Please help in identifying the issue...
 = ;
Regards,
Kishore

From:= kishore sowdi <kishore_r_s@yahoo.co.in>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> =
Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" <= ;rohc@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 2:20 PM
Su= bject: Re: [rohc] Question regarding SIGCOMP
Hi Carsten,
 
With reference to my earlier diagram, I am describing state crea= te and state access made by server.
 
In message (4), I = see 3 state creates made by server
[-]UDVM execution trace
 = no_of_state_create 3
 ### Creating state ###
 Partial state= identifier: AEDBAB80652A
 ### Creating state ###
 P= artial state identifier: AAA2B32CE212
 ### Creating state ###
&n= bsp;Partial state identifier:
 
 In message (6), I see = state access(referenced) using partial state id made by server.
 [-]Signaling Compression
  Returned_feedback item: 03  Partial state identifier: AEDBAB80652A
  Remaining S= igComp message bytes: 280
  ### Accessing state ###
  Parti= al state identifier: AEDBAB80652A
 
In message (4),
- I can see 3 state creates as part of "UDVM Execution trace" as decip= ted by Wireshark (Network Protocol Analyzer) .
- Why did not server send these three state create requests using STAT= E-CREATE as part of UDVM byte code?
 
In message (6),
- State having AEDBAB80652A id is referenced (state access) by = server.
- My SIP Client says, state with such an identifier not found and= as a result SIP Client fails to decompress the message.
 
I feel, during (4), If state create requests were made eplicitly = using STATE-CREATE, then my SIP Client would have created those states.
and during (6), decompression would be successful.
 
Regards,
Kishore
 
 
From: Carsten Bormann <= ;cabo@tzi.org>
To: ki= shore sowdi <kishore_r_s@yahoo.co.in>
Cc: "rohc@ietf.org" <rohc@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 1:45 P= M
Subject: Re: [rohc] Qu= estion regarding SIGCOMP
Kishore,

your diagram does not really show the important p= arts:
-- which states are being created
-- which states are being ref= erenced

It is a bit hard to make out from that what is going on.
=
Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten

_____________________________________________= __
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
----- Forwarded Message -----<= /DIV>
From: kishore sowdi <kishore_r_s@yahoo.co.in>
To: "rohc@ietf.org" <rohc@ietf.org= >
Sent: Wednesday, 2= 3 May 2012 11:46 AM
Subject:= Question regarding SIGCOMP
Hi ,
 
I am using SIGCOMP to compress/decompress SIP application.
 
SIP Client is uploading UVDM bytecode in all messages it sen= ds to server.
Below is the message exchange between SIP Client and Server,
 
 
Client        &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;      &nbs= p;         &= nbsp;                =               Server
1) REG (Client sends bytecode) ---->
 
        &nbs= p;       =          &nb= sp;                &n= bsp;                &= nbsp;        &nbs= p;             &n= bsp;   (2) <---- = ; 401(Server sends byte code)    <= SPAN class=3Dyiv1768045339tab>         &nbs= p;                &nb= sp;             
=  
3) REG  (Client sends bytecode) --= -->    
 
        &nbs= p;       =          &nb= sp;                &n= bsp;                &= nbsp;        &nbs= p;             &n= bsp;   (4) <----- 200 OK (= Server sends byte code)  
 
5) SUBSCRIBE (Client sends bytecode)----->
 
                =          &nb= sp;       = ;         &n= bsp;                &= nbsp;                   &n= bsp;      (6) <----- 200 OK (Server sends partial s= tate identifier )
 
---> At (6), server tries to access state, by giving partial state = identifiers, which it gave in state create at step (4) as per "UDVM Executi= on trace"....
---> when client receives (6), it is failing to decompres= s it saying state not found....
---> (6) gets re-transmitted many times.....
 
However at (4), server has sent only one STATE-CREATE instruction = ;in bytecode ...
But, packet sniffer(wireshark) shows in "UDVM Execution Trace" having = 3 state create requests...
 
My question is , why there are no 3 STATE-CREATE instructions in bytec= ode at (4) ??...
I am confused because "UDVM Execution Trace" having 3 state create req= uests... and there are no corresponding STATE-CREATE instructions at (4)..<= /DIV>
 
Since Client has not received 3 STATE-CREATE's in bytecode at (4), it = has not created those states and suddenly at (6), when server refers to tha= t state giving "partial state id", client fails to match it to the state.
 
Please help in identifying the issue...
 
Regards,
Kishore




--1044491220-1743198891-1338286275=:70328--