The Presence-Specific Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (Sigcomp)
draft-garcia-simple-presence-dictionary-06

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) Yes

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Abstain

I'm honestly dubious of the entire fixed dictionary approach.  Now the
LZW patent is expired (as of 2004), there's an extremely lightweight
dynamic dictionary algorithm with almost no overhead available in
addition to other successful alternatives (zlib/gzip).  I expect most
mobile devices to have zlib code for HTTP (and likely TLS) in order to
save bandwidth anyway, why not allow them to reuse that code for SIP?
Does the extra complexity of a custom fixed-dictionary algorithm with
negotiated dictionaries provide sufficient real benefits over the
general purpose likely-already-present compression code?

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Abstain

To the extent that I can evaluate this document it seems fine.
However that wasn't really enough that I felt comfortable balloting a no-obj.
sigcomp is one of those things I  have not spent the time to understand.