IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Sip] RE: [rohc] Requirements for signaling compression

"Price, Richard" <richard.price@roke.co.uk> Thu, 02 August 2001 17:24 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA08207 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:24:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA07372; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:57:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA07341 for <sip@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:57:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rsys000a.roke.co.uk ([193.118.201.102]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA00233 for <sip@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:56:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by RSYS002A with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <QAAM1BXX>; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:57:25 +0100
Message-ID: <76C92FBBFB58D411AE760090271ED4186F9DFE@RSYS002A>
From: "Price, Richard" <richard.price@roke.co.uk>
To: 'Hans Hannu' <Hans.Hannu@epl.ericsson.se>
Cc: rohc@cdt.luth.se, sip@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:57:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary"
Subject: [Sip] RE: [rohc] Requirements for signaling compression
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org

Hi,

These requirements seem fine to me - assuming of course that SIP
compression is performed on a per-hop basis.

What about compression between a mobile and a SIP proxy? Is this beyond
the scope of the ROHC WG?

Regards,

Richard P

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Hannu [mailto:Hans.Hannu@epl.ericsson.se]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:31 PM
To: rohc
Subject: [rohc] Requirements for signaling compression


Hi,

From the discussions I see that compression of SIP is the major concern all
have, but maybe we should also look at the current version of the
requirements document as we will discuss requirements in London, not only
solutions.
Chapter 3 of,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-signaling-req-assump-01.
txt states the current requirements. There are most likely requirements
missing and maybe not all are wanted...

BR
/Hans H

---
Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/rohc/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email