Subject: RE: [rohc] TCP profile FN, ip_id_behavior_enc

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:51:57 +0200

> 
> IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_SEQUENTIAL         = 0;
> IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_SEQUENTIAL_SWAPPED = 1;
> IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM             = 2;
> IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM_SWAPPED     = 3;

And what would "RANDOM_SWAPPED" mean? 
Do we cover IP_ID_ZERO? Then no field at all is sent, but anyway...

/L-E 

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: Eilert Brinkmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:25:04 +0200

> And what would "RANDOM_SWAPPED" mean? 

Argh, just an ugly mistake. Obviously, I mixed something up when
composing the constant names.

> Do we cover IP_ID_ZERO? Then no field at all is sent, but anyway...

Yes. Of course, the fourth definition should be:

IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_ZERO = 3;

Eilert

---

From: Kristofer Sandlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:30:53 +0200

Hi!

I think we have one more problem regarding the IPID. Currently, I don't think 
the descriptions actually capture what comrpessed packet format set IPv6 uses, 
since it does not have this control field (ip_id_behavior).

So, I think we need to place a let-statement in the ipv6 default_methods to say 
that the behavior is IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM, so that the _rnd packet format set 
is always used. This would also mean that the behavior control field would have 
to be defined for IPv6 as well. Or do we add some 'let' to the compressed packet 
formats to indicate that "if behavior is undefined" instead?

Btw, I'm fine with changing the behavior numbers to symbolic constants, that 
seems like a good idea.

/Kristofer Sandlund, Effnet AB