[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Bob Monsour wrote:
> 1. What is the status of adding compression to ESP?
Bob,
I think compression should officially be made an optional feature
of ESP, so that there is a defined way to negotiate the use of
compression. I think that otherwise (since compression is a Good
Thing, IMHO), several incompatible approaches will arise.
> 2. Placement of the "packet compressed/not-compressed" byte/bit
> (a) alter the transform draft to specify a max of 128 bytes of padding
I think it would be unwise to start introducing downward compatibility
features at this early stage, where no "final" commercial (or
other publicly available) versions are out yet, so it should be
very easy to change them. Those not supporting compression will
most likely not need a single byte of source change.
- -Marcel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Charset: next
iQCVAwUBMwkT7cqBByDTF1SlAQEV0QQA0HPJThF2eQ761N4hdeCnbo6i0W5HV034
MKVydLnlGttpk300xJypx0l0k1KF7/ZzlOZmyoMoKLNZBHwPzE0xGFvKKUPrf9kE
npEHbFbHP0FviBMXqAuMwyxlLu973ZEQ8DWEUazAs0W/dTJ1JcJQRknrxNyjlP4L
/l4k1Z6eYDc=
=/1zz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
References: