Subject: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-impl-guide-09.txt

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 04:35:12 -0600

Hi, Adam,

Thanks for the feedback. On your direct response below, if the authors 
happened to stick words that sounded like your explanation in during AUTH48, 
it would make the rationale for the decision even clearer - which is to say 
that the choice the working group made seems very reasonable.

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Adam Roach" <[email-masked]>

>> 12.  RFC 3485 SIP/SDP Static Dictionary
>>
>>   However, there are some minor bugs in the dictionary.  In a number of
>>   places, the entry in the offset table refers to an address that is
>>   not in the corresponding priority section in the list of strings.
>>   Consequently, if the bytecode uses the offset table and limits use of
>>   the dictionary to priorities less than 4, then care must be taken not
>>   to use the following strings in the dictionary:
>>
>>      'application' at 0x0334 is not at priority 2 (it's priority 4)
>>      'sdp' at 0x064b is not at priority 2 (it's priority 4)
>>      'send' at 0x089d is not at priority 2 (it's priority 3)
>>      'recv' at 0x0553 is not at priority 2 (it's priority 4)
>>      'phone' at 0x00f2 is not at priority 3 (it's priority 4)
>>
>>   These are seen to be relatively low cost bugs as only these 5 strings
>>   are affected and they are only affected under certain conditions.
>>
>> Spencer: Nit - I can't make myself object to documenting this caution
>> instead of updating the dictionary specification (here or elsewhere), but 
>> I
>> wish I could... :-( Is the assumption that it's not worth the disruption 
>> of
>> bumping the version number?
>
> And it's not just a matter of bumping the dictionary -- it would basically 
> either require a non-backwards-compatible change or add a requirement for 
> all implementations to carry around both dictionaries. The bugs are 
> annoying from an aesthetic point of view, but they're trivial to work 
> around and inconsequential in terms of compression ratios. 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 04:06:29 +0800

Hi, Magnus,

I've looked at version 10 of this specification and all my comments from 09 
have been addressed. I'm pointing this review to you (as sponsoring AD), 
because I'm not sure whether the RFC Editor will know what to do with this 
abstract text:

   This document (if approved) clarifies and corrects text in the
   following updated RFCs: RFC 3320, RFC 3321, RFC 3485.

I'm reading this as

   This document (if approved) clarifies and corrects text in the
   following RFCs: RFC 3320, RFC 3321, RFC 3485, and the RFC Index
   will be updated accordingly.

So, if there is any RFC on the list that is ONLY clarified, and not 
corrected, please talk with the RFC Editor about what they need to do, 
because I'm not sure whether clarifying counts as updating.

Thanks,

Spencer