Re: [hybi] Framing Take VI (a compromise proposal)

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On Mon Aug 16 16:12:23 2010, John Tamplin wrote:
> The whole reason the agreement to get a base protocol out now and  
> work on
> extensions in early 2011 is that we don't have any sort of  
> consensus on how
> these extensions should be implemented.  For example, we seem to  
> have pretty
> broad agreement that compression should be supported.  However, we  
> have at
> least 3 very different ideas for doing it:
> 
>    - per-frame compression, using negotiated (and possibly  
> asymmetric)
>    algorithms and using a bit per frame to indicate compressed data  
> (and
>    possibly exchange compression dictionary information in  
> extension data)
>    - mandate zlib compression and manipulate the compression level  
> to avoid
>    trying to compress uncompressible data
>    - compress the entire stream and flush at each frame boundary,  
> and assume
>    uncompressible data won't expand too much

As an aside, the last two are closely related - that is, the second  
is almost a subset of the first, since if deflate (or zlib, or gzip)  
compression is negotiated, then the receiver needn't know that the  
sender is fiddling with the compression levels at all, as far as I  
understand things.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[e-mail] - xmpp:[e-mail]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade