Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.toronto.edu!ietf-nntp-distribution-owner
Message-ID: <9106251745.AA05306@presto.ig.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 14:45:37 -0400
From: mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: compression methods
Original-To: ietf-nntp@turbo.bio.net
Newsgroups: list.ietf-nntp
Distribution: list
Sender: list-admin@cs.toronto.edu
Approved: list.ietf-nntp@mail.cs.toronto.edu
Lines:       27

[Eliot writes:]
> With regard to the COMPRESSION option, I'd rather that the compression
> method be negotiated such that prearrangement need not be necessary in
> all cases.  Unfortunately, yes, this would also require a name
> registry.  If a compression is used that is not in the registry, then
> it must be prearranged.
> 
> Comments?

Ideally, I think it would be best if we could eliminate all
requirements for name registration.  This question has come up with
respect to authentication and/or encryption scheme names, as well.
Since it seems to be accepted that in the present model NNTP
connections exist only by prearrangment, then I do not think it is too
much to ask that "nonstandard"[1] feed parameters be prearranged also.
Presumably NNTP implementations will make reference to certain
well-known compression or authentication schemes, and these names will
form the basis for mutual pre-arrangement.  To try to do more commits
the community to yet another cumbersome name registration scheme.

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@presto.ig.com

[1] A "standard" feed would be the present common modality, i.e., a
feed of by an active transmission client without compression, batching,
authentication, encryption, or state information other than IHAVE.