RFC 3322: Signaling Compression (SigComp) Requirements & Assumptions
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
In wireless environments and especially in cellular systems, e.g. GSM (Global System for Mobile communications) and UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System), there is a need to maximize the transport efficiency for data over the radio interface. With the introduction of SIP/SDP (Session Initiation Protocol/Session Description Protocol) to cellular devices, compression of the signaling messages should be considered in order to improve both service availability and quality, mainly by reducing the user idle time, e.g. at call setup. The purpose of this document is to outline requirements and motivations for development of a scheme for compression and decompression of messages from signaling protocols.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3322
- Published
- January 2003
- Authors
- H. Hannu
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 13
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 3485The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (SigComp)Updated
March 2003
- RFC 3321Signaling Compression (SigComp) - Extended OperationsUpdated
January 2003
- RFC 3320Signaling Compression (SigComp)Updated
January 2003
- RFC 2848The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP Access to Telephone Call ServicesCurrent
June 2000
- RFC 3910The SPIRITS (Services in PSTN requesting Internet Services) ProtocolCurrent
October 2004
- RFC 4896Signaling Compression (SigComp) Corrections and ClarificationsCurrent
June 2007
- RFC 3323A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Current
December 2002
- RFC 3324Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted IdentityCurrent
December 2002
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?