rohc

[RoHCv1.2.0] RoHC Ext-03 Encoder & Decoder

Asked by Orville Andrade

Hi All,

I find in RoHCv1.2.0 while 'packing or unpacking' the 'IP-ID' field in the Ext-03 header the absolute value of 'IP-ID' is being used and not compressed 'IP-ID' bits (using Offset IP-ID encoding) as specified in Section 5.7 (beginning) of RFC3095.

Is this understanding correct??

--
Regards,
Orville Andrade

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Answered
For:
rohc Edit question
Assignee:
Didier Barvaux Edit question
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) said : 		#1

This question was expired because it remained in the 'Open' state without activity for the last 15 days.

Revision history for this message
Didier Barvaux (didier-barvaux) said : 		#2

Open the question again because it requires further analysis from the ROHC Team.

Revision history for this message
Cédric Baudoin (cedric-baudoin-free) said : 		#3

Hi !

Not sure of what is really specified in the RFC. The ext3 extension format described in the §5.7 describes a 2 bytes long field for the IP-ID, and thus I understand that this field is not compressed. However, the RFC refers to the beginning of the section where IP-ID coding is described...

Cédric Baudoin

Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) said : 		#4

This question was expired because it remained in the 'Open' state without activity for the last 15 days.

Revision history for this message
Didier Barvaux (didier-barvaux) said : 		#5

Open the question again because it requires further analysis from the ROHC Team.

Revision history for this message
Didier Barvaux (didier-barvaux) said : 		#6

Open the question again because it requires further analysis from the ROHC Team.

Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) said : 		#7

This question was expired because it remained in the 'Open' state without activity for the last 15 days.

Revision history for this message
Didier Barvaux (didier-barvaux) said : 		#8

Someone expressed the same opinion in bug #761955. I finally take some time on the problem. This is now confirmed: the library was not RFC-compliant on that specific point. Correction is in progress.

Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask Orville Andrade for more information if necessary.

To post a message you must log in.