Subject: [Gen-art] Re: Review Assignment: draft-garcia-simple-presence-dictionary-06.txt

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:12:51 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: The Presence-Specific Static Dictionary for Signaling 
Compression (Sigcomp)
Reviewer:  Joel M. Halpern
Review Date:  08-Oct-2007
IESG Telechat date: not scheduled

Summary: This document appears ready for publication as an Proposed RFC

Comments:
If this were not part of an established and well-defined approach to 
signaling compression, the 10% benefit for this document would seem 
insufficient to justify publication.  Given the existence of the 
mechanism, and the relatively low cost for a system to make use of 
this document, the tradeoff seems to be in favor of publication.

There are a set of design decisions about what strings to use in the 
compression dictionary (for example, just using "foo", instead of 
listing "<foo ", "<foo/>", and "</foo>") that are fairly important 
and can not be reviewed by this reviewer.  I presume that some 
external review of this decision has been performed by experts from 
the Signaling Compression activity.

very minor: idnits reports a few outdated references.

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

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

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:02:38 +0300

Hi Joel,

Thanks for the review.

To address the issue of the design decisions you refer, those were made 
based on the experience of the SIP dictionary for Sigcomp (RFC 3485), 
and implementation experience.

/Miguel

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> mechanism, and the relatively low cost for a system to make use of this 
> document, the tradeoff seems to be in favor of publication.
> 
> listing "<foo ", "<foo/>", and "</foo>") that are fairly important and 
> can not be reviewed by this reviewer.  I presume that some external 
> review of this decision has been performed by experts from the Signaling 
> Compression activity.
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland