Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation

"Dean Willis" <dean.willis@softarmor.com> Sun, 03 May 2009 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E30E3A70D8 for <sip-ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 824CgdK9ln+W for <sip-ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nylon.softarmor.com (nylon.softarmor.com [66.135.38.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1473A70EC for <sip-ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.65.6.71] (mobile-032-145-213-160.mycingular.net [32.145.213.160] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nylon.softarmor.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n43GXVPs016230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 3 May 2009 11:33:38 -0500
From: "Dean Willis" <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor@rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:33:35 -0500
Message-ID: <WNQHYTPgGvwQ.rzn0RkdD@nylon.softarmor.com>
X-Mailer: EPOC Email Version 2.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: i-default
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" <sip-ops@ietf.org>, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation
X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
List-Id: SIP Operations <sip-ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops>, <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-ops>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops>, <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 16:32:21 -0000

Right. In my experience, binary offers only marginal performance over structured ASCII. Structure can be applied either through fixed lengths or through encoded length indicators. The encoded length indicators can also be fixed length, or structured in some other easy way. This can produce the benefits of human-readable messages combined with rapid parsing, with the only overheads relative to binary being slightly larger records and some string-to-number conversions.


--
Dean Willis

-original message-
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor@rogers.com>;
Date: 05/02/2009 05:09

How about adding length fields to ASCII?