[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Whatever happend to compression?

am I to take this as an indication that at least some people would do a
compression transform "beside" an encryption transform?  In other words, the
"don't worry PPP will make you happy" answer is not considered sufficient?

>X-Sender: t3125rm@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com
>Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 12:35:08 -0400
>To: Robert Glenn <glenn@snad.ncsl.nist.gov>, ipsec@TIS.COM
>From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>
>Subject: Re: Whatever happend to compression?
>Cc: rob.glenn@nist.gov
>Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
>
>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
>
>
>

                  Rodney Thayer           ::         rodney@sabletech.com
                  Sable Technology Corp   ::              +1 617 332 7292
                  246 Walnut St           ::         Fax: +1 617 332 7970     
                  Newton MA 02160 USA     ::  http://www.shore.net/~sable
                           "Developers of communications software"
Follow-Ups: