Subject: [rohc] IR Extensibility (Was: Replication packet type)

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:16:23 +0200

Hi all,

I have been thinking a little bit more about this. The reason
why a new framework packet type (i.e. a packet type that is
common to all profiles) can be needed (as for replication) 
is to allow new context initialization methods, i.e.
when a decompressor must be able to interpret the packet
before a context has been established. New non-IR packet
types can always be defined on a per-profile basis. What we
therefore should ensure future extensibility for would be
new types of IR-packets. 

PT [11111001] would then be defined as IR-X (extension),
where for example [11111001 00] could be defined as IR-Rep
(replication). We then have a hook for future IR variants
(this is basically what Richard proposed earlier). 

The main point is that the extensibility is about IR's, since
these are the packets that must be unambiguously interpretable
by the decompressor, before a context is established and 
associated with a specific profile. Other packet types can be
defined on a per-profile basis, using the profile specific
types [11111010] and [11111011].

Please let me know if I have forgotten something important
in my analysis.

Cheers,
/L-E

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