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 PROTECTED]>
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 protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
