Hi All, I agree with your opinion. There should not be any hard and fast rule for mapping of compartment id to dialog id. It should be implementation specific. Also since the compartment id is not shared across endpoints, no specific rule needs to be defined for mapping of compartment id to sip parameters like call id or dialog id.
thanks suman ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:48 PM Subject: [Sip-implementors] SIP dialog and SigComp compartments relationship > Hi All, > > A quotation from draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-sip-01.txt section 3: > "When SigComp is applied to SIP, there is a one-to-one relationship between > a SIP dialog (see section 12 of [RFC-3261]) and a pair of peer SigComp > compartments.... > The only requirement is to maintain a local one-to-one mapping between a > dialog ID and a compartment ID." > > This kind of limitation might cause inefficiency. For exmaple, in case of > UAC, which is configured to send all its' requests to an outbound proxy. > Instead of using single compartment, that stores common data (all the > outgoing requests share the same destination), each established dialog will > trigger new compartment. It seems to be wasteful. > > Generally, there might be several dialogs that share common data and had > better if they would also share the same compartment, isn't it? > > Thanks in advance, > John. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
