[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the COMPRESSION discussion
--- On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:42:06 -0800 Bob Monsour <rmonsour@earthlink.net> wrote:
> At 01:57 AM 3/20/97 Time, Ran Atkinson wrote:
> >
> >Just to be clear, I _personally_ am indifferent about compression.
> >As co-chair, I'm very religious about following the standards process.
> >Before we can move forward there MUST be rough consensus within the WG
> >on how to proceed. Right now this just is not present. Sigh.
> >The items that the IPsec WG needs to sort out are:
> >
> >1) Is compression "must implement" or "optional to implement" or
> > "outside our scope" ?
> >
>
> Ran, please forgive my frustration here (and perhaps I'm miss-reading the
> process) but I distinctly recall Paul Lambert getting up to summarize the
> activity of the WG meeting (in San Jose) and saying that there appeared to
> be consensus that the WG should take up compression as a work item.
> ... the recently issued minutes (I understand that
> they "have not been edited") state "A straw pole indicated there is no
> current consensus on how to proceed". Am I the only one with this
> recollection? I read Paul's comment as calling compression within the scope
> of the WG.
Those statements are not mutually exclusive. The fact that we are
discussing compression is consistent with it being a Work Item. Not
all work items lead to specifications, though most do.
"How to proceed" is a broader question that encompasses the items
I mentioned in my email note:
mandatory or optional to implement
what mechanism to use
etc. (see original note)
Further, frustrating though it might be, the consensus of this WG
seems to be fairly fluid on several topics, including compression.
I have received recent email from several different people asserting
that they now believe compression to be important but out of scope
for IPsec in that they believe it should be done at a higher protocol
processing layer. I might or might not personally agree, but its not
my personal call -- its up to the group as a whole to reach some conclusions.
Those who really want to make progress on this should write up some
concrete protocol specifications in the form of an I-D, put it online,
present it to the WG in Memphis, and see whether the WG as a whole
is comfortable with that approach. Such an I-D should try to answer
the questions I've posed.
Its entirely possible for this WG to reach consensus on this in Memphis
if people will write some concrete things up and present them in a
way that convinces most people in the WG...
Ran
rja@inet.org
Follow-Ups:
References: