Subject: [Sipping] Comments to the SIP/SDP static dictionary -04

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:32:34 +0300

Hi:

Some comments to the SIP/SDP static dictionary for signalling compression,
draft-ietf-sipping-sigcomp-sip-dictionary-04.txt

In the SIP input strings (Appendix A):

- As RFC 3261 mandates the implementation of TCP in UAs and proxies, I 
  suspect that TCP is going to be so common as UDP. Therefore, the 
  priority of all the strings where "TCP" is involved should be the same
  as the "UDP counterpart. My suggestion:

   "SIP/2.0/TCP "                         2           [2] 25.1

   "[CRLF]Via: SIP/2.0/TCP "              1           [2] 20.42

- I believe the ACK string should get prioirty 1, as it is mandated
  as part of all the session invitations.

   "ACK"                                  1           [2] 25.1
   "ACK "                                 1           [2] 25.1

- My suggestion is to upgrade MESSAGE to priority 3. I suspect that
  it is going to be used quite a lot more than the rest of the
  strings that are falling into priority 4.

   "MESSAGE"                              3           [20] 9
   "MESSAGE "                             3           [20] 9

- Content-Length must be present in all the SIP messages. Therefore,
  it should be priority 1:

   "[CRLF]Content-Length: "               1           [2] 20.14

- The Event string contains a few extra white spaces after the column.
  It should be:

  "[CRLF]Event: "                         3           [8] 8.2.1

- I guess Record-Route should be priority 2:

   "[CRLF]Record-Route: "                 2           [2] 20.30

In the SDP input strings (Appendix B):

- According to the latest version of the drafts, the "mikey" extension
  is written in lower case. We have written it in uppercase, so we
  should replace its entry with:

-    "[CRLF]a=key-mgmt:mikey"               4           [28] 2.1,
                                            [29] 6

NITs:

- In section 2, there are a few paragraphs (6 to 12) that describe the 
  column layout of the input strings. As the input strings moved to 
  appendixes A and B, I guess these paragraphs should moved there
  as well. The problem is that the text should be repeated in each
  annex.

- Reference 18 needs to add the ".txt" to the file name.

- Appendixes A and B, second paragraphaph: The terminology should be 
  consistent, because in one sentence we speak about *lower* priority 
  values, whereas at the end we speak about *small* priority values.

That's all.

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel-Angel Garcia                     Oy LM Ericsson AB
                                        Jorvas, Finland
mailto:[email-masked]     Phone:  +358 9 299 3553
mailto:[email-masked]        Mobile: +358 40 5140002
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP