[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Whatever happend to compression?
At 10:26 AM 5/20/96 -0400, Robert Glenn wrote:
>
>The idea of having a transform that performs compression before
>encryption has come up several times in the past, but I don't believe
>it has been discussed recently. Notably, compression has not been
>added to any of the existing transform documents. Along these lines, I
>have a few questions.
>
>1. Is compression still of interest as part of this group? If so,
> I'll ask our local compression folks for some detailed information
> (and try to get them to write something up). If not, I guess
> the rest of this can be ignored ;)
Compression must be a real issue to anyone on this list that will be running
product over slow WAN links, like POTS. I think that is most here.
My dialup experience says its a must implement, the only question is how.
See below.
>2. Should compression be a seperate function (i.e. ESP, AH,
> Compression) or should it be optionally applied to the individual
> transforms as part of ESP (and AH?)?
It seems that there were opinions that said this would be a negotiated
option. That all of the key negotiation proposals had ways of including the
compression negotiation and that a separate transform was not needed.
>3. Are compression algorithm patent issues still a problem and are
> they enough of a problem to prevent IETF standardization?
The PPPEXT group finally went with a variance. Discuss this with them and
the IESG for details. It was painful, that much I remember.
Robert Moskowitz
Chrysler Corporation
(810) 758-8212