Subject: Re: first release of ippcp arch

From: Naganand Doraswamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:07:50 -0400

Bob,

I was reading ur LZS compression draft. You use one bit in the algorithmic
specific field to indicate if the datagram was compressed or not. All the
compression protocol need a bit to indicate if the payload is compressed or
not. There are two approaches. In one case, if the compression increases
the payload size then dont even include the header (I think this is what
Roy suggested). The other is solution is to have this bit indicate whether
the payload is compressed or not.

I like the former solution as there is no overhead if the packet is not
compressed. If we decide the go the other way, then I would rather have
this bit defined across all compression algorithms instead of each document
defining it.

--Naganand

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Naganand Doraswamy				(508)916-1323 (O)
Bay Architecture Lab				(508)670-8153 (Fax)
3 Federal St, Mail Stop BL3-04
Billerica, MA 01821

---

From: Bob Monsour <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 21:13:47 -0700

I think Roy's suggestion of not putting in the header/cpi if there is no
compression is the right way to go. I would've circulated my draft a bit
more prior to submission, but ran out of time. I will present my draft and
note that ammendment to it.

-Bob