rohc

UO-1,UOR-2

Asked by regulararmy

Hello Didier,

                         as for the UO-1,UOR-2 PDU format in c_generic.c, I find they are not same as UO-1,UOR-2 PDU format in the RFC3095. but UO-1-RTP,UOR-2-RTP PDU format in c_generic.c are same as UO-1,UOR-2 PDU format in the RFC3095.
how can I see it? Thank you

                              regards

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
rohc Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Didier Barvaux
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Didier Barvaux (didier-barvaux) said : 		#1

Hello,

The UO-1 and UOR-2 formats in the source code do match the formats defined in the RFC 3095 for the ROHCv1 UDP and ESP profiles. See §5.11.3 for the UDP profile and §5.12.2 for the ESP profile. Those formats are used if the compressed stream is identified as one UDP or ESP stream.

The UO-1-RTP and UOR-2-RTP formats in the source code do match the formats defined in the RFC 3095 for the ROHCv1 RTP profile. See §5.7.3 and §5.7.4. Those formats are used if the compressed stream is identified as one RTP stream.

Regards,
Didier

Revision history for this message
regulararmy (regulararmy) said : 		#2

but in §5.7.3 and §5.7.4, they are named as "UO-1" and "UOR-2 ", not "UO-1-RTP" and "UOR-2-RTP " in the source code,which puzzled me,

Revision history for this message
Best Didier Barvaux (didier-barvaux) said : 		#3

Yes, I understand your point of view. The RFC gives the same names to 2 different formats. The code gives them different names to avoid ambiguities. The UDP and ESP profiles were developped before the RTP profile, so they got the short names first.

Revision history for this message
regulararmy (regulararmy) said : 		#4

Thank you.

Revision history for this message
regulararmy (regulararmy) said : 		#5

Thanks Didier Barvaux, that solved my question.