Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

[EKR <[e-mail]>]

> At 09:47 AM 2/19/97 -0800, EKR wrote:
> >> At 09:22 AM 2/19/97 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >> >I see you haven't heard of SSL, eh?
> >> 
> >> I am very aware of SSL (and it provides support for compressing prior to
> >> encrypting).
> >Well, sort of:
> >
> >There is a socket for compression to be plugged into. There are
> >no defined compression plugs (other than null) and I don't expect
> >there to be any for some time.
> 
> That's funny. When I made a presentation at the TLS (SSL) wg meeting at the
> San Jose meeting in December, the first question I asked the group (200+ in
> attendance) was how many thought support for compression was important for
> TLS. I distinctly recall that well over half of the room raised their
> hands. While no one is using a compression "plug" today, I wouldn't go as
> far as predicting that there won't "be any for some time".
Here's a brief summary of the situation:
TLS is in the process of preparing a document that describes
TLS-1.0 (3.0?). That document will not have compression in it.

After that, the floor is open for TLS 1.1 (3.1?) which might
or might not have compression and N other things in it, but 
essentially none of the details of that protocol have been
hashed out, which means it won't be out for 'some time', IMHO.

That's what I based my comments on. 

-Ekr