[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 03 04 RFC 4019

Network Working Group                                 Ghyslain Pelletier
INTERNET-DRAFT                                               Ericsson AB
Expires: December 2004
                                                            June 9, 2004


                    RObust Header Compression (ROHC):
                          Profiles for UDP-Lite
                      <draft-ietf-rohc-udp-lite-04.txt>


Status of this memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I (we) certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am (we are) aware have been
   disclosed, and any of which I (we) become aware will be disclosed, in
   accordance with RFC 3668 (BCP 79).

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I (we) accept the provisions of
   Section #3 of RFC 3667 (BCP 78).

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or cite them other than as "work in progress".

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/lid-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This document is a submission of the IETF ROHC WG. Comments should be
   directed to the ROHC WG mailing list, rohc@ietf.org.


Abstract

   This document defines ROHC (Robust Header Compression) profiles for
   compression of RTP/UDP-Lite/IP packets (Real-Time Transport Protocol,
   User Datagram Protocol Lite, Internet Protocol) and UDP-Lite/IP.
   These profiles are defined based on their differences with the
   profiles for UDP specified in RFC 3095.






Pelletier                                                       [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004










Table of Contents

   1. Introduction.....................................................3
   2. Terminology......................................................4
   3. Background.......................................................4
      3.1. Overview of the UDP-Lite Protocol...........................4
      3.2. Expected Behaviours of UDP-Lite Flows.......................5
         3.2.1. Per-packet behavior....................................5
         3.2.2. Inter-packet behavior..................................5
         3.2.3. Per-flow behavior......................................6
      3.3. Header Field Classification.................................6
   4. Rationale behind the Design of ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite........7
      4.1. Design Motivations..........................................7
      4.2. ROHC Considerations.........................................7
   5. ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite.......................................7
      5.1. Context Parameters..........................................8
      5.2. Initialization..............................................9
         5.2.1. Initialization of the UDP-Lite Header [1]..............9
         5.2.2. Compressor and Decompressor Logic......................9
      5.3. Packet Formats.............................................10
         5.3.1. General Packet Format.................................10
         5.3.2. Packet Type CCE: CCE(), CCE(ON) and CCE(OFF)..........11
            5.3.2.1. Properties of CCE():.............................12
            5.3.2.2. Properties of CCE(ON):...........................12
            5.3.2.3. Properties of CCE(OFF):..........................12
      5.4. Compressor Logic...........................................13
      5.5. Decompressor Logic.........................................13
      5.6. Additional Mode Transition Logic...........................13
      5.7. The CONTEXT_MEMORY Feedback Option.........................13
      5.8. Constant IP-ID.............................................14
   6. Security Considerations.........................................15
   7. IANA Considerations.............................................15
   8. Acknowledgments.................................................15
   9. Author's Address................................................15
   10. References.....................................................16
      10.1. Normative References......................................16
      10.2. Informative References....................................16
   Appendix A - Detailed Classification of Header Fields..............17
   Appendix B - Detailed Format of the CCE Packet Type................20







Pelletier                                                       [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


1. Introduction

   The ROHC WG has developed a header compression framework on top of
   which various profiles can be defined for different protocol sets, or
   for different compression strategies. Due to the demands of the
   cellular industry for an efficient way of transporting voice over IP
   over wireless, ROHC [2] has mainly focused on compression of
   IP/UDP/RTP headers, which are generous in size, especially compared
   to the payloads often carried by packets with these headers.

   ROHC RTP has become a very efficient, robust and capable compression
   scheme, able to compress the headers down to a total size of one
   octet only. Also, transparency is guaranteed to an extremely high
   extent, even when residual bit errors are present in compressed
   headers delivered to the decompressor.

   UDP-Lite [1] is a transport protocol similar to the UDP protocol [7].
   UDP-Lite is useful for applications that are designed with the
   capability to tolerate errors in the payload and for which receiving
   damaged data is better than dealing with the loss of entire packets.
   This may be particularly suitable when packets are transported over
   link technologies where data can be partially damaged, such as
   wireless links.

   Although both transport protocols are very similar, ROHC profiles
   must be defined separately for robust compression of UDP-Lite headers
   because UDP-Lite does not share the same protocol identifier with
   UDP. Also, the UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage field does not share the
   semantics of the corresponding UDP Length field and as a consequence
   it cannot always be inferred anymore.

   This document defines two ROHC profiles for efficient compression of
   UDP-Lite headers. The objective of this document is to provide simple
   modifications to the corresponding ROHC profiles for UDP specified in
   RFC 3095 [2]. In addition, the ROHC profiles for UDP-Lite support
   some of the mechanisms defined in the profile for compression of IP
   headers [3] (ROHC IP-Only). This specification includes support for
   compression of multiple IP headers and for compressing IP-ID fields
   with constant behavior, as well as improved mode transition logic and
   a feedback option for decompressors with limited memory resources.














Pelletier                                                       [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


2. Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD, "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

   ROHC RTP         : RTP/UDP/IP profile 0x0001 defined in RFC 3095 [2].
   ROHC UDP         : UDP/IP profile 0x0002 defined in RFC 3095 [2].
   ROHC UDP-Lite    : UDP-Lite/IP profile defined in this document.
   ROHC RTP/UDP-Lite: RTP/UDP-Lite/IP profile defined in this document.


3. Background


3.1. Overview of the UDP-Lite Protocol

   UDP-Lite is a transport protocol defined as an independent variant of
   the UDP transport protocol. UDP-Lite is very similar to UDP, and it
   allows applications that can tolerate errors in the payload to use a
   checksum with an optional partial coverage. This is particularly
   useful with IPv6 [6], where the use of the transport-layer checksum
   is mandatory.

   UDP-Lite replaces the Length field of the UDP header with a Checksum
   Coverage field. This field indicates the number of octets covered by
   the 16-bit checksum, which is applied on a per-packet basis. The
   coverage area always include the UDP-Lite header and may cover the
   entire packet, in which case UDP-Lite becomes semantically identical
   to UDP. UDP-Lite and UDP do not share the same protocol identifier.

     The UDP-Lite header format:

        0              15 16             31
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+
       |     Source      |   Destination   |
       |      Port       |      Port       |
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+
       |    Checksum     |                 |
       |    Coverage     |    Checksum     |
       +--------+--------+--------+--------+
       |                                   |
       :              Payload              :
       |                                   |
       +-----------------------------------+

   The UDP-Lite checksum, like the UDP checksum, is an end-to-end
   mechanism against erroneous delivery of error sensitive data.
   This checksum is mandatory with IPv6 [5] for both protocols.
   However, as opposed to UDP, the UDP-Lite checksum may not be
   transmitted as all zeroes and cannot be disabled for IPv4 [5].



Pelletier                                                       [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


   For UDP, in the case where the checksum is disabled (IPv4 only), the
   Checksum field maintains a constant value and is normally not sent by
   the header compression scheme. In the case where the UDP checksum is
   enabled (mandatory for IPv6), such an unpredictable field cannot be
   compressed and is sent uncompressed. The UDP Length field, however,
   is always redundant and can be provided by the IP module. Header
   compression schemes do not normally transmit any bits of information
   for this field, as its value can be inferred from the link layer.

   For UDP-Lite, the checksum also has unpredictable values and this
   field must always be included as-is in the compressed header, for
   both IPv4 and IPv6. Furthermore, as the UDP Length field is redefined
   as the Checksum Coverage field by UDP-Lite, this leads to different
   properties for this field from a header compression perspective.

   The following summarizes the relationship between UDP and UDP-Lite:

     - UDP-Lite and UDP have different protocol identifiers;
     - The UDP-Lite checksum cannot be disabled for IPv4;
     - UDP-Lite redefines the UDP Length field as the Checksum
       Coverage field, with different semantics;
     - UDP-Lite is semantically equivalent to UDP when the Checksum
       Coverage field indicates the total length of the packet.

   The next section provides a more detailed discussion of the behavior
   of the Checksum Coverage field of UDP-Lite in relation to header
   compression.


3.2. Expected Behaviours of UDP-Lite Flows


3.2.1. Per-packet behavior

     As mentioned in the previous section, the checksum coverage value
     is applied independently of other packets that may belong to the
     same flow. Specifically, the value of the checksum coverage may
     indicate that the UDP-Lite packet is either entirely covered by the
     checksum, or covered up to some boundary less than the packet size
     but including the UDP-Lite header.


3.2.2. Inter-packet behavior

     In relation to each other, UDP-Lite packets may exhibit either one
     of three possible change patterns, where within a sequence of
     packets the value of the Checksum Coverage field is:

       1. changing, while covering the entire packet;
       2. unchanging, covering up to a fixed boundary within the packet;
       3. changing, but does not follow any specific pattern.



Pelletier                                                       [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


     The first pattern above corresponds to the semantics of UDP, when
     the UDP checksum is enabled. For this case, the checksum coverage
     field varies according to the packet length and may be inferred
     from the IP header similarly as for the UDP Length field.

     The second pattern corresponds to the case where the coverage is
     the same from one packet to another within a particular sequence.
     For this case, the Checksum Coverage field may be a static value
     defined in the context and it does not need to be sent in the
     compressed header.

     For the third case, no useful change pattern can be identified from
     packet to packet for the value of the checksum coverage field, and
     it must be included in the compressed header.


3.2.3. Per-flow behavior

     It can be expected that any one of the above change patterns for
     sequences of packets may be predominant at any time during the
     lifetime of the UDP-Lite flow. A flow that predominantly follows
     the first two change patterns described above may provide
     opportunities for compressing the Checksum Coverage field for most
     of the packets.


3.3. Header Field Classification

     In relation to the header field classification of RFC 3095 [2], the
     first two patterns represent the case where the value of the
     Checksum Coverage field behavior is fixed and may be either
     INFERRED (pattern 1) or STATIC (pattern 2); pattern 3 is for the
     case where the value varies unpredictably, the field is CHANGING
     and the value must be sent along with every packet.

     Additional information regarding the analysis of the behavior of
     the UDP-Lite fields may be found in Appendix A.

















Pelletier                                                       [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


4. Rationale behind the Design of ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite


4.1. Design Motivations

   Simplicity is a strong motivation for the design of the UDP-Lite
   header compression profiles. The profiles defined for UDP-Lite should
   entail only a few simple modifications to the corresponding profiles
   defined for UDP in RFC 3095 [2]. In addition, it is desirable to
   include some of the improvements found in the ROHC IP-Only profile
   [3]. Finally, whenever UDP-Lite is used in a manner that is
   semantically identical to UDP, the compression efficiency should be
   similar.


4.2. ROHC Considerations

   The simplest approach to the definition of ROHC profiles for UDP-Lite
   is to treat the Checksum Coverage field as an irregular value, and to
   send it uncompressed for every packet. This may be achieved simply by
   adding the field to the definition of the general packet format [2].
   However, the compression efficiency would then always be less than
   for UDP.

   Some care should be given to achieve similar compression efficiency
   for UDP-Lite as for UDP when the Checksum Coverage field behaves like
   the UDP Length field. This requires the possibility to infer the
   Checksum Coverage field when it is equal to the length of the packet.
   This would otherwise put the UDP-Lite protocol at a disadvantage over
   links where header compression is used, when its behavior is made
   similar to the semantics of UDP.

   A mechanism to detect the presence of the Checksum Coverage field in
   compressed headers is thus needed. This is achieved by defining a new
   packet type with the identifiers left unused in RFC 3095 [2].


5. ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite

   This section defines two ROHC profiles:

   - RTP/UDP-Lite/IP compression (profile 0x0007)
   - UDP-Lite/IP compression     (profile 0x0008)

   These profiles build on the specifications found in RFC 3095 [2] with
   as little modifications as possible. Unless explicitly stated
   otherwise, the profiles defined herein follow the specifications of
   ROHC UDP and ROHC RTP, respectively.

   Note also that this document reuses the notation found in [2].




Pelletier                                                       [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


5.1. Context Parameters

   As described in [2], information about previous packets is maintained
   in a context. This includes information describing the packet stream,
   and compression parameters. While the UDP and UDP-Lite protocols
   share many commonalities, the differences in semantics as described
   earlier renders the following parameter inapplicable:

   The parameter context(UDP Checksum)

     The UDP-Lite checksum cannot be disabled, as opposed to UDP. The
     parameter context(UDP Checksum) defined in [2] (section 5.7) is
     therefore not used for compression of UDP-Lite.

   In addition, the UDP-Lite checksum is always sent as-is in every
   compressed packet. However, the Checksum Coverage field may not
   always be sent in each compressed packet, and the following context
   parameter is used to indicate whether or not the field is sent:

   The parameter context(UDP-Lite Coverage Field Present)

     Whether the UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage field is present or not in
     the general packet format (see section 5.3.1) is controlled by the
     value of the Coverage Field Present (CFP) flag in the context.

     If context(CFP) is nonzero, the Checksum Coverage field is not
     compressed and it is present within compressed packets. If
     context(CFP) is zero, the Checksum Coverage field is compressed and
     it is not sent. This is the case when the value of the Checksum
     Coverage field follows a stable inter-packet change pattern; the
     field has either a constant value or it has a value equal to the
     packet length for most packets in a sequence (see section 3.2).

   Finally, the following context parameter is needed to indicate
   whether the field should be inferred or taken from a value previously
   saved in the context:

   The parameter context(UDP-Lite Coverage Field Inferred)

     When the UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage field is not present in the
     compressed header (CFP=0), whether it is inferred or not is
     controlled by the value of the Coverage Field Inferred (CFI) flag
     in the context.

     If context(CFI) is nonzero, the Checksum Coverage field is inferred
     from the packet length, similarly as for the UDP Length field in
     ROHC RTP. If context(CFI) is zero, the Checksum Coverage field is
     decompressed using context(UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage). Therefore,
     when context(CFI) is updated to a nonzero value, the value of the
     Checksum Coverage field stored in the context must also be updated.




Pelletier                                                       [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


5.2. Initialization

   Unless stated otherwise, the mechanisms of ROHC RTP and ROHC UDP
   found in [2] are used also for the ROHC RTP/UDP-Lite and the ROHC
   UDP-Lite profiles, respectively.

   In particular, the considerations of ROHC UDP regarding the UDP SN
   taking the role of the RTP Sequence Number apply to ROHC UDP-Lite.
   Also, the static context for ROHC UDP-Lite may be initialized by
   reusing an existing context belonging to a stream compressed using
   ROHC RTP/UDP-Lite (profile 0x0007), similarly as for ROHC UDP.


5.2.1. Initialization of the UDP-Lite Header [1]

   The structure of the IR and IR-DYN packets and the initialization
   procedures are the same as for the ROHC profiles for UDP [2], with
   the exception of the dynamic part as specified for UDP. A 2-octet
   field containing the checksum coverage is added before the Checksum
   field. This affects the format of dynamic chains in both IR and IR-
   DYN packets.

   Dynamic part:

      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      /       Checksum Coverage       /   2 octets
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      /           Checksum            /   2 octets
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   CRC-DYNAMIC: Checksum Coverage field, Checksum field (octets 5-8).

   CRC-STATIC: All other fields (octets 1-4).


5.2.2. Compressor and Decompressor Logic

   The following logic must be used by both the compressor and the
   decompressor for assigning values to the parameters context(CFP) and
   context(CFI) during initialization:


   Context(CFP)

     During context initialization, the value of context(CFP) MUST be
     set to a nonzero value if the Checksum Coverage field differs from
     the length of the UDP-Lite packet, for any one IR or IR-DYN packet
     sent (compressor) or received (decompressor); otherwise the value
     MUST be set to zero.





Pelletier                                                       [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


   Context(CFI)

     During context initialization, the value of context(CFI) MUST be
     set to a nonzero value if the Checksum Coverage field is equal to
     the length of the UDP-Lite packet within an IR or an IR-DYN packet
     sent (compressor) or received (decompressor); otherwise the value
     MUST be set to zero.


5.3. Packet Formats

     The general packet format as defined in RFC 3095 [2] is modified to
     include an additional field for the UDP-Lite checksum coverage. A
     packet type is also defined to handle the specific semantics and
     characteristics of this field.


5.3.1. General Packet Format

   The general packet format of a compressed ROHC UDP-Lite header is
   similar to the compressed ROHC RTP header ([2], section 5.7), with
   modifications to the Checksum field, as well as additional fields for
   handling multiple IP headers and for the UDP-Lite checksum coverage:

      --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
     :            List of            :  variable, given by static chain
     /        dynamic chains         /  (does not include SN)
     :   for additional IP headers   :  see also [3], section 3.2.
      --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
     :                               :  2 octets,
     +  UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage   +  if context(CFP) = 1 or
     :                               :  if packet type = CCE (see 5.3.2)
      --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
     :                               :
     +      UDP-Lite Checksum        +  2 octets
     :                               :
      --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

   The list of dynamic header chains carries the dynamic header part for
   each IP header in excess of the initial two, if any (as indicated by
   the presence of corresponding header parts in the static chain). Note
   that there is no sequence number at the end of the chain, as SN is
   present within compressed base headers.

   The order of the fields following the optional extension of the
   general ROHC packet format is the same as the order between the
   fields in the uncompressed header.

   When calculating the CRC, the Checksum Coverage field is CRC-DYNAMIC.





Pelletier                                                      [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


5.3.2. Packet Type CCE: CCE(), CCE(ON) and CCE(OFF)

   The ROHC profiles for UDP-Lite defines a packet type to handle the
   various possible change patterns of the checksum coverage. This
   packet type may be used to manipulate the context values that control
   the presence of the Checksum Coverage field within the general packet
   format, i.e. context(CFP), and how the field is decompressed, i.e.
   context(CFI). The 2-octet Checksum Coverage field is always present
   within the format of this packet (see section 5.3.1).

   This type of packet is named Checksum Coverage Extension, or CCE, and
   its updating properties depend on the final two bits of the packet
   type octet (see format below). A naming scheme of the form
   CCE(<some_property>) is used to uniquely identify the properties of a
   particular CCE packet.

   Although this packet type defines its own format, it may be
   considered as an extension mechanism for packets of type 2, 1 or 0
   [2]. This is achieved by substitution of the packet type identifier
   of the first octet of the base header (the "outer" identifier) with
   one of the unused packet types from RFC 3095 [2]. The substituted
   identifier is then moved to the first octet of the remainder of the
   base header (the "inner" identifier).

   The format of the ROHC UDP-Lite CCE packet type:

     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   | 1   1   1   1   1   0   F | K |  Outer packet type identifier
   +===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+
   :                               :  (with inner type identifier)
   /       Inner Base header       /  variable number of bits, given by
   :                               :  the inner packet type identifier
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

     F,K: F,K = 00 is reserved at framework level (IR-DYN);
          F,K = 01 indicates CCE();
          F,K = 10 indicates CCE(ON);
          F,K = 11 indicates CCE(OFF).

     Updating properties: The updating properties of the inner packet
          type carried within any of the CCE packets are always
          maintained. CCE(ON) and CCE(OFF) MUST NOT be used to extend
          R-0 and R-1* headers. In addition, CCE(ON) always update
          context(CFP); CCE(OFF) always update context(CFP),
          context(CFI) and context(UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage).

   Appendix B provides an expanded view of the resulting format of the
   CCE packet type.





Pelletier                                                      [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


5.3.2.1. Properties of CCE():

     Aside from the updating properties of the inner packet type carried
     within CCE(), this packet does not update any other context values.
     CCE() thus is mode-agnostic, e.g. it can extend any of packet types
     2, 1 and 0, regardless of the current mode of operation [2].

     CCE() may be used when the checksum coverage deviates from the
     change pattern assumed by the compressor, where the field could
     previously be compressed. This packet is useful if the occurrence
     of such deviations is rare.


5.3.2.2. Properties of CCE(ON):

     In addition to the updating properties of the inner packet type,
     CCE(ON) updates context(CFP) to a nonzero value, i.e. it
     effectively turns on the presence of the Checksum Coverage field
     within the general packet format. This is useful when the
     predominant change pattern of the checksum coverage preclude its
     compression.

     CCE(ON) can extend any of the context updating packets of type 2, 1
     and 0, that is packets with a compressed header containing a CRC
     [2]. Specifically, R-0 and R-1* headers MUST NOT be extended using
     CCE(ON).


5.3.2.3. Properties of CCE(OFF):

     In addition to the updating properties of the inner packet type,
     CCE(OFF) updates context(CFP) to a value of zero, i.e. it
     effectively turns off the presence of the Checksum Coverage field
     within the general packet format. This is useful when the change
     pattern of the checksum coverage seldom deviates from the pattern
     assumed by the compressor.

     CCE(OFF) also updates context(CFI) to a nonzero value, if
     field(UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage) is equal to the packet length;
     otherwise it must be set to zero. Note that when updating
     context(CFI) using packet type CCE(OFF), a match of field(Checksum
     Coverage) with the packet length always has precedence over a match
     with context(Checksum Coverage). Finally, context(UDP-Lite Checksum
     Coverage) is also updated by CCE(OFF).

     Similarly to CCE(ON), CCE(OFF) can extend any of the context
     updating packets of type 2, 1 and 0 [2].







Pelletier                                                      [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


5.4. Compressor Logic

   Should hdr(UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage) be different from context(UDP-
   Lite Checksum Coverage) and different from the packet length when
   context(CFP) is zero, the Checksum Coverage field cannot be
   compressed. In addition, should hdr(UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage) be
   different from the packet length when context(CFP) is zero and
   context(CFI) is nonzero, the Checksum Coverage field cannot be
   compressed either. For both cases, the field must be sent
   uncompressed using a CCE packet or the context must be reinitialized
   using an IR packet.


5.5. Decompressor Logic

   For packet types other than IR, IR-DYN and CCE that are received when
   the value of context(CFP) is zero, the Checksum Coverage field must
   be decompressed using the value stored in the context if the value of
   context(CFI) is zero; otherwise the field is inferred from the length
   of the UDP-Lite packet derived from the IP module.


5.6. Additional Mode Transition Logic

   The profiles defined in this document allow the compressor to decline
   a mode transition requested by the decompressor. This is achieved by
   redefining the Mode parameter for the value mode = 0 (in packet types
   UOR-2, IR and IR-DYN) as follow (see also [3], section 3.4):

      Mode: Compression mode.  0 = (C)ancel Mode Transition

   Upon receiving the Mode parameter set to '0', the decompressor MUST
   stay in its current mode of operation and SHOULD refrain from sending
   further mode transition requests for the declined mode for a certain
   amount of time.


5.7. The CONTEXT_MEMORY Feedback Option

   This feedback option informs the compressor that the decompressor
   does not have sufficient memory resources to handle the context of
   the packet stream required by the current compressed structure.

        0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      |  Opt Type = 9 |  Opt Len = 0  |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   When receiving a CONTEXT_MEMORY option, the compressor SHOULD take
   actions to compress the packet stream in a way that requires less
   decompressor memory resources, or stop compressing the packet stream.



Pelletier                                                      [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


5.8. Constant IP-ID

   The profiles for UDP-Lite support compression of the IP-ID field with
   constant behavior with the addition of the Static IP Identifier (SID)
   flag within the dynamic part of the chain used to initialize the IPv4
   header, as follow (see also [3], section 3.3):

   Dynamic part:

      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      |        Type of Service        |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      |         Time to Live          |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      /        Identification         /   2 octets
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      | DF|RND|NBO|SID|       0       |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      / Generic extension header list /  variable length
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   SID: Static IP Identifier.

      For IR and IR-DYN packets:

         For IR and IR-DYN packets, the logic is the same as for the
         respective ROHC profiles for UDP, with the addition that
         field(SID) must be kept in the context.

      For compressed headers other than IR and IR-DYN:

         If value(RND) = 0 and context(SID) = 0, hdr(IP-ID) is
         compressed using Offset IP-ID encoding (see [2], section
         4.5.5) using p = 0 and default-slope(IP-ID offset) = 0.

         If value(RND) = 0 and context(SID) = 1, hdr(IP-ID) is constant
         and compressed away; hdr(IP-ID) is the value of context(IP-ID).

         If value(RND) = 1, IP-ID is the uncompressed hdr(IP-ID). IP-ID
         is then passed as additional octets at the end of the
         compressed header, after any extensions.

   Note: Only IR and IR-DYN packets can update context(SID).

   Note: All other fields are the same as for the respective ROHC
   profiles for UDP [2].








Pelletier                                                      [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


6. Security Considerations

   The security considerations of RFC 3095 [2] apply integrally to this
   document without modifications.


7. IANA Considerations

   ROHC profile identifiers 0x0007 (ROHC RTP/UDP-Lite) and 0x0008 (ROHC
   UDP-Lite) have been reserved by the IANA for the profiles defined in
   this document.

   { NOTE TO IANA - TO BE REMOVED BEFORE PUBLICATION }

      Two ROHC profile identifiers must be reserved by the IANA for the
      profiles defined in this document. Since profile number 0x0006 is
      being saved for the TCP/IP (ROHC-TCP) profile, profile numbers
      0x0007 and 0x0008 are the most suitable unused identifiers
      available, and should thus be used. As for previous ROHC profiles,
      profile numbers 0xnn07 and 0xnn08 must also be reserved for future
      variants of these profiles. The registration suggested for the
      "RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Profile Identifiers" name space:

      OLD:   0x0006-0xnn7F     To be Assigned by IANA

      NEW:   0xnn06            To be Assigned by IANA
             0x0007            ROHC RTP/UDP-Lite        [RFCXXXX (this)]
             0xnn07            Reserved
             0x0008            ROHC UDP-Lite            [RFCXXXX (this)]
             0xnn08            Reserved
             0x0009-0xnn7F     To be Assigned by IANA

   { END OF NOTE }


8. Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Lars-Erik Jonsson, Kristofer Sandlund,
   Mark West, Richard Price, Gorry Fairhurst, Fredrik Linstroem and Mats
   Nordberg for useful reviews and discussions around this document.


9. Author's Address

   Ghyslain Pelletier
   Ericsson AB
   Box 920
   SE-971 28 Lulea, Sweden
   Phone: +46 920 20 24 32
   Fax  : +46 920 20 20 99
   Email: ghyslain.pelletier@ericsson.com



Pelletier                                                      [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


10. References


10.1. Normative References

   [1]  S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
        Hannu, H., Jonsson, L., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K., Liu,
        Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., Wiebke, T.,
        Yoshimura, T. and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC):
        Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed",
        RFC 3095, July 2001.

        <# Editor's Note: RFC number to be updated before publication #>
        <#                for <draft-ietf-rohc-ip-only-05.txt>        #>

   [3]  Jonsson, L. and G. Pelletier, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC):
        A compression profile for IP", RFCZZZZ, %Month% 2004.

        <# Editor's Note: RFC number to be updated before publication #>
        <#                for <draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-02.txt>      #>

   [4]  Larzon, L., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L. and G.
        Fairhurst, "The UDP-Lite Protocol", RFCUUUU, %Month% 2004.


10.2. Informative References

   [5]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.

   [6]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
        Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [7]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August
        1980.


   [8]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson, "RTP:
        A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 1889,
        January 1996.












Pelletier                                                      [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


Appendix A - Detailed Classification of Header Fields

   This section summarizes the difference from the classification found
   in the corresponding appendix in RFC 3095 [2], and similarly provides
   conclusions about how the various header fields should be handled by
   the header compression scheme to optimize compression and
   functionality. These conclusions are separated based on the behavior
   of the UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage field and uses the expected change
   patterns described in section 3.2 of this document.


A.1.  UDP-Lite Header Fields

   The following table summarizes a possible classification for the UDP-
   Lite header fields in comparison with the classification for UDP,
   using the same classes as in RFC 3095 [2].

     Header fields of UDP-Lite and UDP:

                                  +-------------------+-------------+
                                  |      UDP-Lite     |     UDP     |
     +-------------------+--------+-------------------+-------------+
     |       Header      |  Size  |       Class       |    Class    |
     |       Field       | (bits) |                   |             |
     +-------------------+--------+-------------------+-------------+
     |    Source Port    |   16   |     STATIC-DEF    | STATIC-DEF  |
     | Destination Port  |   16   |     STATIC-DEF    | STATIC-DEF  |
     | Checksum Coverage |   16   |      INFERRED     |             |
     |                   |        |       STATIC      |             |
     |                   |        |      CHANGING     |             |
     |      Length       |   16   |                   |  INFERRED   |
     |     Checksum      |   16   |      CHANGING     |  CHANGING   |
     +-------------------+--------+-------------------+-------------+

   Source and Destination Port

     Same as for UDP. Specifically, these fields are part of the
     definition of a stream and must thus be constant for all packets in
     the stream.  The fields are therefore classified as STATIC-DEF.

   Checksum Coverage

     This field specifies which part of the UDP-Lite datagram is covered
     by the checksum. It may have a value of zero or equal to the
     datagram length if the checksum covers the entire datagram, or it
     may have any value between eight octets and the length of the
     datagram to specify the number of octets protected by the checksum,
     calculated from the first octet of the UDP-Lite header. The value
     of this field may vary for each packet, and this makes the value
     unpredictable from a header compression perspective.




Pelletier                                                      [Page 17]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


   Checksum

     The information used for the calculation of the UDP-Lite checksum
     is governed by the value of the checksum coverage, and minimally
     includes the UDP-Lite header. The checksum is a changing field that
     must always be sent as-is.

   The total size of the fields in each class, for each expected change
   patterns (see section 3.2), is summarized in the tables below:

   Pattern 1:
     +------------+---------------+
     |   Class    | Size (octets) |
     +------------+---------------+
     | INFERRED   |       2       |  Checksum Coverage
     | STATIC-DEF |       4       |  Source Port / Destination Port
     | CHANGING   |       2       |  Checksum
     +------------+---------------+

   Pattern 2:
     +------------+---------------+
     |   Class    | Size (octets) |
     +------------+---------------+
     | STATIC-DEF |       4       |  Source Port / Destination Port
     | STATIC     |       2       |  Checksum Coverage
     | CHANGING   |       2       |  Checksum
     +------------+---------------+

   Pattern 3:
     +------------+---------------+
     |   Class    | Size (octets) |
     +------------+---------------+
     | STATIC-DEF |       4       |  Source Port / Destination Port
     | CHANGING   |       4       |  Checksum Coverage / Checksum
     +------------+---------------+



















Pelletier                                                      [Page 18]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


A.2.  Header Compression Strategies for UDP-Lite

   The following table revisits the corresponding table (table A.1) for
   UDP from [2] (section A.2), and classifies the changing fields based
   on the change patterns previously identified in section 3.2.

   Header compression strategies for UDP-Lite:
   +----------+---------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
   |  Field   | Pattern | Value/Delta |   Class   | Knowledge |
   +==========+=========+=============+===========+===========+
   |          |    #1   |    Value    | CHANGING  | INFERRED  |
   | Checksum |---------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
   | Coverage |    #2   |    Value    |    RC     |  UNKNOWN  |
   |          |---------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
   |          |    #3   |    Value    | IRREGULAR |  UNKNOWN  |
   +----------+---------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
   | Checksum |   All   |    Value    | IRREGULAR |  UNKNOWN  |
   +----------+---------+-------------+-----------+-----------+


A.2.1.  Transmit initially, but be prepared to update

   UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage (Patterns #1 and #2)


A.2.2.  Transmit as-is in all packets

   UDP-Lite Checksum
   UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage (Pattern #3)

























Pelletier                                                      [Page 19]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


Appendix B - Detailed Format of the CCE Packet Type

   This section provides an expanded view of the format of the CCE
   packet, based on the general ROHC RTP compressed header [2] and the
   general format of a compressed header of the ROHC IP-Only profile
   [3]. The modifications necessary to carry the base header of a packet
   of type 2, 1 or 0 [2] within the CCE packet format along with the
   additional fields to properly handle compression of multiple IP
   headers results in the following structure for the CCE packet type:

     0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   :         Add-CID octet         :  if for small CIDs and CID 1-15
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   | 1   1   1   1   1   0   F | K |  Outer packet type identifier
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   :                               :
   /   0, 1, or 2 octets of CID    /  1-2 octets if large CIDs
   :                               :
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |   First octet of base header  |  (with "inner" type indication)
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   /    Remainder of base header   /  variable number of bits
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   :                               :
   /          Extension            /  See RFC 3095 [2], section 5.7.
   :                               :
    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   :                               :
   +   IP-ID of outer IPv4 header  +  See RFC 3095 [2], section 5.7.
   :                               :
    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   /    AH data for outer list     /  See RFC 3095 [2], section 5.7.
    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   :                               :
   +         GRE checksum          +  See RFC 3095 [2], section 5.7.
   :                               :
    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   :                               :
   +   IP-ID of inner IPv4 header  +  See RFC 3095 [2], section 5.7.
   :                               :
    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   /    AH data for inner list     /  See RFC 3095 [2], section 5.7.
    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   :                               :
   +         GRE checksum          +  See RFC 3095 [2], section 5.7.
   :                               :
    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   :            List of            :  Variable, given by static chain
   /        dynamic chains         /  (includes no SN)
   :   for additional IP headers   :  See [3], section 3.2.



Pelletier                                                      [Page 20]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
   :                               :
   +  UDP-Lite Checksum Coverage   +  2 octets
   :                               :
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   :                               :
   +      UDP-Lite Checksum        +  2 octets
   :                               :
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   F,K: F,K = 00 is reserved at framework level (IR-DYN);
        F,K = 01 indicates CCE();
        F,K = 10 indicates CCE(ON);
        F,K = 11 indicates CCE(OFF).

   Note that this document does not define (F,K) = 00, as this would
   collide with the IR-DYN packet type already reserved at the ROHC
   framework level.




































Pelletier                                                      [Page 21]

INTERNET-DRAFT         ROHC Profiles for UDP-Lite          June 9, 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
   on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
   be found in RFC 3667 (BCP 78) and RFC 3668 (BCP 79).

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.






This Internet-Draft expires December 9, 2004.






Pelletier                                                      [Page 22]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/