Subject: WGLC summary: Local Compression

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:41:48 -0500

There were few responses on the last call of the Local Compression
document on the mailing list. 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsind-local-compression-05.txt

First: All the responses but the one from the author of the document
were negative or neutral.  Most argued against advancing the document.
The only "need" that was identified is that this mechanism allows future
types to be compressible and processable by servers that do not know
about the type but know about local compression. 

Second: The arguments put forward against Local Compression include:
	Having possibly multiple type dependent mechanisms for
	    canonical form is not a good idea. 
	Cost in server implementation vs benefit is not worth it. 
	Alternate mechanisms for allowing compression of new types by 
	    using EDNSx version number as marker, are possible at less cost. 
	General purpose compression might give better results at lower
	    cost.

Third: Arguments put forward in support of Local compression include:
       One time solution for all future types, no need to keep
          updating the list of compressible types.
       Benefits are hard to measure up front as contents of future
          types are hard to predict. 

At this point the the working group chairs sense the working group
consensus is to declare this document, as not having enough benefit to
justify implementation and not advance it. 

	Olafur & Randy