Subject: Issue with compression algorithms

From: Naganand Doraswamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:21:20 -0500

We need to decide soon on how we want to handle compression algorithms. I
was thinking that we should not have mandatory compression algorithm to
implement. Instead, we should publish informational RFC's on various
compression algorithms and let the market decide which one to use.

Is there any strong objection to this approach in the working group?
--Naganand

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Naganand Doraswamy				(978)916-1323 (O)
Bay Architecture Lab				(978)670-8153 (Fax)
3 Federal St, Mail Stop BL3-04
Billerica, MA 01821

---

From: Roy Pereira <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:39:07 -0500

I don't beleive that we need a 'default' compression algorithm.  While
this does negate the interoperability factor, I don't beleive that
compression is a 'must have' component of a connection (while security
might be).  If we have separate documents detailing how to use a certain
compression algorithm within IPComp, that would be fine.  These
documents would point to other documents that detail the actuall
compression algorithm.

---

From: Rodney Thayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:21:40 -0500

I agree with Roy, and furthermore, I think it would be reasonable if we
added some statement to the effect that "since you can operate the network
without compress this specification does not require any specific one as a
'must to implement", simply to document this observation.

>From: Roy Pereira <[email-masked]>
>To: "'Naganand Doraswamy'" <[email-masked]>,
>        "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: Issue with compression algorithms
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:39:07 -0500
>X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version
4.0.995.52

---

From: Avram Shacham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:36:44 +0200

The IP Payload Compression Protocol could have been more complete with a
default algorithm. Show me a high-performance compression algorithm, which
is available in source-code and royalty-free, and I'll vote to define it to
be the default in IPComp. However, in a market where all compression
algorithms are IP, it is hard to justify a mandatory requirement for a
compression algorithm. So, the reality dictates that we continue as the
draft defines, with "No Compression" as default.

avram

---

From: Robert Friend <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:43:43 -0800

This (unfortunately) was my experience at the PPP (CCP) layer as well.

Regards,
_____________________________________________________________

Robert C. Friend              Hi/fn
Applications Engineering      5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 110
voice: (760) 827-4542         Carlsbad, CA 92008
FAX:   (760) 827-4577         email: [email-masked]

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Avram Shacham [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Tuesday, November 11, 1997 11:37 AM
>To:	Naganand Doraswamy; [email-masked]
>Cc:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Issue with compression algorithms
>

---

From: Bob Monsour <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:42:35 -0800

I think the approach you suggest is the correct one.
-Bob

>Is there any strong objection to this approach in the working group?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Monsour                                Hi/fn Inc.
[email-masked]                          2105 Hamilton Avenue
408-558-8065                               Suite 230
408-558-8074 fax                           San Jose, CA  95125
----------------------------------------------------------------