This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgHi Andreas, some comments regarding your issues.txt: > must random value in chan_request change on every resend or only on > every RR establishment? (currently it changes on every RR > establishment only.) as far as I know, it has to change on every retransmission. Dieter is probably the person who knows all RACH aspects in detail, maybe he can comment on this. > must be expanded: struct osmocom_ms: no problem here, expand it how you see fit. I just generally prefer caller-allocated structures to callee-allocated ones, and I'd like to use static allocation whenever possible. So if there's only one 'struct rrlayer' per ms, then we should simply include 'struct rrlayer' as sub-structure of 'struct osmocom_ms', rather than having two structures and pointers between them. > OpenBSC: if tx-msg fails during process, the msg must be freed to > avoid memory leak. I don't understand, can you please explain this further? > random acces via RSL? I think we simply add some new / non-standard primitives, as it does not have any notion of RACH bursts. It might also be possible to encode it as UNIT DATA REQUEST for channel (chan_nr) RACH (CCCH uplink), but then we still cannot specify details like at which frame number, etc. From what I can see, your RSL_MT_RAND_ACC_REQ approach looks fine to me. As a minor improvement we could call it RSLms_MT_RAND_ACC_REQ to indicate that it is our custom RSLms message and nothing specified in the original RSLms spec. Cheers, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)