Subject: Draft name (was RE: [lemonade] COMPRESS Thoughts)

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:00:54 -0400

There is a purely procedural reason for reusing the old draft name.  It
buys us a week.  Blame the chair :ht not :->], etc.).  Once we finish Compression for IMAP, doing
a Compression for SUBMIT should be a trivial exercise for the reader.

OK?

On Wed May 31 20:29:26 2006, Burger, Eric wrote:
[snip]
> (2) Consensus that compression is directional, i.e., downstream
> compressed, upstream uncompressed.  This is because IMAP upstream
> commands may be real short (meaning compression actually adds CPU 
> *and* bits used), while content may be real long.
[snip]

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Cridland [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 6:36 PM
To: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service
enivronments
Subject: Re: [lemonade] COMPRESS Thoughts

On Wed May 31 20:29:26 2006, Burger, Eric wrote:
[snip]
> (3) Basis for COMPRESS document is Arnt's imap-deflate-02
> [compress=deflate].  We will call the new document
> draft-ietf-lemonade-compress-04 (delete existing compress text)
> 
> 
Why? It's obviously not a revision of that document. Is there a 
procedural reason for this?
[snip]

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade