Subject: RE: [rohc] SigComp and SIP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:43:16 -0500

> If folks think that it is OK that two proxies that support SigComp MUST
> always exhange compressed messages, I will be glad to simplify the
> draft. If people feel that compressing when it is not really needed is
> unacceptable, we will keep the current Record-Route inspection
> mechanism.

I probably missed something here but why do we mix the support of
SigComp with the use of it? Looking at one direction, the sender 
needs to know if the receiver supports SigComp. But beyond that,
it is the sender's choice whether to send compressed message.
In other words, once a receiver says "I support SigComp", it's
out of its control and it must prepare for receiving both 
compressed and uncompressed message.

Zhigang

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:38:40 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:
>>If folks think that it is OK that two proxies that support SigComp
> 
> MUST
> 
>>draft.

I agree with others that this cannot be mandated. I was not proposing 
that it be mandated. See below.

>> If people feel that compressing when it is not really needed is

I agree. This is what I thought the comp=sigcomp parameter meant - "I 
support sigcomp". The sender then has the option of using it. With this 
definition, it makes little sense to have a proxy rewrite the 
record-route to include teh parameter in one direction, and not another.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.            72 Eagle Rock Avenue
Chief Scientist                         First Floor
dynamicsoft                             East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                 FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                  PH:  (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com