答复: Re: Feedback formats

Klaus, Calle,

Thank you for the detailed interpretation and sorry for joining the 
discussion so late.

I think there is no doubt that when mode transitions, any feedback should 
be sent with mode transition parameter;

i.e., use feedback-2

the question is that the feedback logic of non mode transitions: should we 
send feedback with mode parameter?

if YES, which case we could use feedback-1 in profile RTP?

Thanks



caiwei 167981
LTE Development Department | LTE开发部

Product Marketing System 
产品市场体系
D3-06, ZTE Corp., No.10 South Tangyan Rd., 
Hi-tech Industrial Development Zone, Xi'an, 
P.R.China, 710065
Tel:+86-29-88724112, 15801916689
Email:[email protected] 





Klaus Warnke <[email protected]> 
2009-07-16 22:15

收件人
Carl Knutsson <[email protected]>, [email protected]
抄送
[email protected]
主题
Re: [rohc] Feedback formats






Calle, Cai,

yes, I'm wrong.
"short cut" means, there is no handshake procedure needed, but using
feedback-1 was too short.

br
Klaus

Carl Knutsson wrote:
> Klaus, Cai,
>
> Using the "short cut" as Klaus describes below is not really allowed in
> RFC3095. Section 5.6.1 is quite clear that all feedback during a mode
> transition must carry a CRC option. The mode parameter must also be set
> to O to transfer from U-mode to O-mode. FEEDBACK-1 doesn't have a mode
> field and cannot carry feedback options.
>
> Klaus, I guess you refer to the last paragraph of section 5.6.2. It
> should not be interpreted by its own. I agree that the wording is a bit
> unfortunate, but I can still not see how it can be interpret it this
> way. FEEDBACK-1 cannot be used for mode transfer between U-mode and
> O-mode. The compressor simply don't have the information to which mode
> to transfer to.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> /Calle
>
>
> Klaus Warnke wrote:
> 
>> Hello cai,
>>
>> I'm not completely sure what your mean.
>>
>> First, there is a "short cut" to switch from U to O
>> mode (5.6.2.). In this case, a feedback-1 is sufficient, because
>> the receiving of any feedback shows to compressor that a feedback
>> channel is available and this is the precondition for bidirectional
>> optimistic mode.
>>
>> Ideally the mode transition should be profile independent. But for the
>> IR/IR-DYN packet it isn't due to a design flaw. Only the dynamic chain
>> of the RTP Header contains the 'M' (5.7.7.6.) flag to transmit a
>> compression mode. For the other profiles you must use a extension-3.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> If not, could you please explain the problem more detailed?
>>
>> br
>> Klaus Warnke
>>
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> 
>>> RFC 3095 describes that when mode transitions, any feedback should be
>>> sent with mode transition parameter;
>>>
>>> at the same time, the feedback logic of decompressor in U/O/R mode
>>> also send feedback with mode parameter.
>>>
>>> there is a doubt that which case we could use feedback-1 in profile 
RTP?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> *caiwei 167981*
>>> LTE Development Department | LTE¿ª·¢²¿
>>>              *Product Marketing System *
>>> *²úÆ·Êг¡Ìåϵ*
>>> D3-06, ZTE Corp., No.10 South Tangyan Rd.,
>>> Hi-tech Industrial Development Zone, Xi'an,
>>> P.R.China, 710065
>>> Tel:+86-29-88724112, 15801916689
>>> Email:[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this 
mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail 
communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to 
maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this 
communication to others.
>>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those 
of the individual sender.
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam 
system.
>>> 
>>> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rohc mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rohc mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
>> 





--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc