Signaling Compression (SigComp) Corrections and Clarifications
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Magnus Westerlund Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
Does this or doesn't this formally update RFC 3320, RFC 3321, RFC 3485? This should be stated very clearly in the Abstract if a formal "updates" is intended.
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
The Title page header should include: "Updates: 3320, 3321, 3485 (once approved)" In section 1, there is a missing end quote. It should say: > > "in section RFC-3320:3.4" refers to section 3.4 of RFC 3320  > This syntax is not used consistently. Some examples: - section RFC3320:7 - section RFC3320-9.4.2 Please fix the sentence in Section 1, and then use it consistently. Please pick one spelling: "Sigcomp" or "SigComp"
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
I have concerns about the ease-of-use of the document. After some hesitations I reached the conclusion that they are not critical to grant a DISCUSS, yet it may be well if the editors and WG would consider these: 1. The title of the document is mis-leading - it is more than an 'Implementer's Guide' as some changes alter normative text in other documents. I believe that 'SigComp - Implementer's Guide, Clarifications and Updates' may be more appropriate. 2. Because of changes (corrections and additions) of normative text the header should mention that the document updates RFC 3320 and RFC 3485. I could not find updates to normative text in 3321, but maybe I missed them. 3. The document is a mix of implementation hints, clarifications and updates. Future implementers of SigCom would have a hard time to find the changes affect normative text in other documents. Most of the updates are concentrated i believe in Sections 4 and 12. It would help I believe if an Appendix would resume in one place all those updates 4. The style of the document is inconsistent on respect to references to other documents, which may reflect different authorship. For example Section 5 prpvides no refereces to 3320 sections, as other sections in the document do.