Applying Signaling Compression (SigComp) to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Magnus Westerlund Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
Comment (2007-06-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
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?
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
Comment (2007-07-15 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I think the ABNF might be better as via-sip-sigcomp-id = "sigcomp-id" EQUAL quoted-string
(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Tim Polk) No Objection
Comment (2007-07-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
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).