Brian, All, My calculations for using two-character names within "spectrum" blocks shows ~37% reduction. Using two "spectrum" blocks to define 40 channels for two bandwidths (for Ofcom) results in ~6500 characters uncompressed (not counting spaces) versus ~4050 compressed, saving ~2450 bytes for a fully loaded (40 channel) Ofcom-compliant channel list reply. This does not include compressing other names within the message, I'm only showing compression for the "spectrum" blocks.
I realize that some WG members may object to this proposal, some may accept it, and others may not care. If there is more to discuss for or against, I hope others will present their opinion and supporting data. I hope we can come to a speedy decision so that radio vendors will know exactly what they are dealing with. The message size in the current specification may be too large for some to accept/implement, but as others have suggested, they can always use a different protocol. Thanks, Don From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:53 AM To: Ray Bellis; Don Joslyn Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] Proposal to optionally support shortened message format <personal opinion> I don't have an objection to doing that, but it won't do anything substantial to the problem. We have had discussions like this on many protocols over the years. Our experience is this kind of thing has little effect on implementations other than complicating debugging. Using a formal compression scheme on the entire message often helps substantially reduce message size, also substantially complicates debugging, and, in general, we don't think it actually helps implementations. You really think that reducing message sizes from, say 14KB to, say 10KB, which any decent compression system should be able to do, would actually make any difference to a device implemented this year? If those Ks were Ms, it might be worth thinking about, but Ks? Please. Shorter names probably only changes messages sizes by 10% or so, clearly insufficient to do anything other than confuse humans. Brian From: Ray Bellis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 8:34 AM To: Don Joslyn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [paws] Proposal to optionally support shortened message format On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:03, Don Joslyn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dan, Vince, When you say that you don't want to have aliases and just want to decide on short names, does that mean that the current long names would be changed to short names and the long names would not be supported? That's my understanding of what has been proposed, and I think it's a good idea. Ray
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
