Subject: [Sip] bis-05 compact form vs. short form

From: William Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:20:01 -0500 (EST)

two small nits for bis-05.

the terms "compact form" and "short form" seem to be used
interchangeably.  It would be nicer to stick to one, which
makes searches easier.

Secondly, draft-ietf-sip-serverfeatures-05 defined a compact
form for the "Supported" header, "k".  That was not kept in 
bis-05.  Intentionally?

These were discovered in checking the availability of "r" and "b"
which are claimed in draft-ietf-sip-refer-00.  As I mentioned
in that review, I believe some criterion other than chronologic
needs to be applied in the allocation of compact forms to extension 
headers, as is currently described in draft-ietf-sip-extensions-00.

Bill Marshall
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:47:02 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Marshall [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sip] bis-05 compact form vs. short form
> 
> 

Yes. We've been trying to consolidate terminology, and will do so here. 

> form for the "Supported" header, "k".  That was not kept in 

Nope, thats an error. The BNF is right, but the short form is not mentioned
in 22.35. It should be mentioned there.

> headers, as is currently described in draft-ietf-sip-extensions-00.

Suggestions? Its not clear to me that this is all that important.

-Jonathan R.
---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: William Marshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:43:47 -0500 (EST)

Johanthan Rosenberg wrote:
> Bill Marshall wrote:
> > 	... I believe some criterion other than chronologic
(I goofed in the reference, it should be draft-ietf-sip-guidelines-02)

Agreed that this should be at the bottom of the priority pile.

In section 4.4 of draft-ietf-sip-guidelines-02, second paragraph:
  Extensions that define new headers SHOULD define a compact form
  representation if the non-compact header is more than four
  characters....
change to:
  Extensions that define new headers that are anticipated to be
  heavily used SHOULD define a compact form....

I think this wording is consistent with the criterion used in 2543
about picking some headers for compact forms and not others.

Bill Marshall
[email-masked]

-----original message-----
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
To: "'William Marshall'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sip] bis-05 compact form vs. short form
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:47:02 -0500

-Jonathan R.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:08:50 -0500

> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:44 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]

OK, the text is changed in will appear in -04 (-03 hasn't appeared yet but
it was submitted).

-Jonathan R.

---