Subject: [rohc] Query

From: "Sarkar, Biplab" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:33:23 +0530

All,

Is there a plan to implement some sort of protocol version for ROHC
compression for proper negotiation and backward compatibility? Since now we
have ROHCv1 and ROHCv2, will it be a good idea to introduce some protocol
version too?

Thanks

Biplab 

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:33:52 +0200

Hi Biplab,

I am not exactly sure I understand your query.

My understanding is that the terminoöogy "RoHCv2" simply means the set of 
profiles that updates the profiles based on RFC3095, which later got the 
nickname "RoHCv1". However, the profile identifier used by RoHC as defined in 
RFC3095 and in the framework document (e.g. profile 0x0001 for "RoHCv1" RTP 
profile, and 0x0101 for the "RoHCv2" RTP profiles) already provides for 
backward compatibility over the ROHC channel defined in the framework.

Note also that the framework draft simply defines the framework separatedly 
from the profiles, but it is by all means entirely compatible with the 
definition in RFC3095. Actually, it is the same, some things might however be 
expressed more clearly.

So, the framework does not change because of RoHCv2 profiles, thus the 
requirements for the negotiation are exactly the same. The profile identifiers 
follow the framework definition, and thus makes RoHCv2 and RoHCv1 profiles 
compatible for both negotiation and usage over the same RoHC channel.

So, what did you have in mind with respect to "introducing some protocol 
version"? Maybe I have missed your point?

Regards,

/Ghyslain