RFC 3759: RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Terminology and Channel Mapping Examples
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document aims to clarify terms and concepts presented in RFC 3095. RFC 3095 defines a Proposed Standard framework with profiles for RObust Header Compression (ROHC). The standard introduces various concepts which might be difficult to understand and especially to relate correctly to the surrounding environments where header compression may be used. This document aims at clarifying these aspects of ROHC, discussing terms such as ROHC instances, ROHC channels, ROHC feedback, and ROHC contexts, and how these terms relate to other terms, like network elements and IP interfaces, commonly used, for example, when addressing MIB issues. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3759
- Published
- April 2004
- Authors
- L-E. Jonsson
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 20
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 3095
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3096Requirements for robust IP/UDP/RTP header compressionCurrent
July 2001
- RFC 3243RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Requirements and Assumptions for 0-byte IP/UDP/RTP CompressionCurrent
April 2002
- RFC 4305Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)Obsoleted
December 2005
- RFC 4835Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)Obsoleted
April 2007
- RFC 1829The ESP DES-CBC TransformCurrent
August 1995
- RFC 3602The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsecCurrent
September 2003
- RFC 4303IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)Current
December 2005
- RFC 2818HTTP Over TLSObsoleted
May 2000
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?