Hi Joel,
Thanks for the review.
To address the issue of the design decisions you refer, those were made
based on the experience of the SIP dictionary for Sigcomp (RFC 3485),
and implementation experience.
/Miguel
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: The Presence-Specific Static Dictionary for Signaling
Compression (Sigcomp)
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 08-Oct-2007
IESG Telechat date: not scheduled
Summary: This document appears ready for publication as an Proposed RFC
Comments:
If this were not part of an established and well-defined approach to
signaling compression, the 10% benefit for this document would seem
insufficient to justify publication. Given the existence of the
mechanism, and the relatively low cost for a system to make use of this
document, the tradeoff seems to be in favor of publication.
There are a set of design decisions about what strings to use in the
compression dictionary (for example, just using "foo", instead of
listing "<foo ", "<foo/>", and "</foo>") that are fairly important and
can not be reviewed by this reviewer. I presume that some external
review of this decision has been performed by experts from the Signaling
Compression activity.
very minor: idnits reports a few outdated references.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
--
Miguel A. Garcia tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks Espoo, Finland
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
