Re: [hybi] deflate-stream and masking

I really believe the base spec must have a compression definition.

The point of my message was that the W3C editor's draft should not turn
into a change in direction on compression on our part because the scope
of that issue is much greater.

On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 20:00 +0000, Gabriel Montenegro wrote:
> <As individual>
> 
> That is my reading as well. 
> 
> <as chair>
> 
> Patrick, would you be able to own that separate spec?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hybi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hybi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Peter Saint-Andre
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 12:49
> > To: Patrick McManus
> > Cc: Hybi
> > Subject: Re: [hybi] deflate-stream and masking
> > 
> > <hat type='individual'/>
> > 
> > On 7/20/11 1:43 PM, Patrick McManus wrote:
> > 
> > > As for compression, the most productive thing to do seems to me to be
> > > to define in a separate draft deflate-frame and push it through the
> > > adoption/standardization process. No matter what is defined the
> > > extensions mechanism should (and does!) provide a mechanism for
> > > migration for any sensible protocol implementations.
> > >
> > > While I don't want to go to the mat for deflate-stream it certainly
> > > has a number of use cases where it does well - most downstream traffic
> > > of> tiny-sized messages, and large upstream messages - so I'm not in
> > > the camp of "just throw it out".
> > 
> > My reading of the discussion is that people don't necessarily want to throw out
> > deflate-stream, but they don't think it belongs in the base spec and they would
> > prefer to see it defined in a separate draft, just as you propose for deflate-frame.
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > --
> > Peter Saint-Andre
> > https://stpeter.im/
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > hybi mailing list
> > hybi@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> 