Skip to main content

Applying Signaling Compression (SigComp) to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
RFC 5049

Yes

(Magnus Westerlund)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

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

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-07-15)
I think the ABNF might be better as 
   via-sip-sigcomp-id = "sigcomp-id" EQUAL quoted-string

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Ward; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-06-05)
I'm glad the authors thought carefully about the Identifier Comparison Rules (section 9.2), but I'm worried this could still be a can'o'worms.  One problem could be with URNs that may also be IRIs.  If the original URN has extended characters, they can get canonicalized or otherwise changed in transit, and then the comparison may not work even though the generating application always initially provides the same URN.  

Is it still possible to limit the kinds of identifiers?  Perhaps recommend UUID URNs at a SHOULD level and note the difficulties in equality comparisons for other kinds of URNs?

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-07-18)
The Security Considerations section indicates that keeping SigComp states does not pose
additional security risks for two reasons.  I believe the second reason,

   "b) this is on a voluntary basis and a SigComp endpoint can choose not to offer it"

is irrelevant.  I suggest deleting b).