Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Compression Using Lempel-Ziv-Stac (LZS)
draft-friend-tls-lzs-compression-04
Yes
(Steven Bellovin)
No Objection
(David Kessens)
(Margaret Cullen)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-05-26)
Unknown
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART Comments: Looks OK, couple of points: 1) Is there an external reference to the LZS compression mechanism? I wasn't clear if this is something that is entirely described within the draft. 2) SSL used in some places (section 1.1) - should it be TLS? NITS: 1) 2026 broilerplate - needs updating 2) Should LZS be expanded in title, abstract & first usage? 3) Section 2.1 has a IANA request, might want to put a note for IANA to fill in the TBA, and perhaps put a back reference to this section in the IANA considerations section. IANA has assigned <TBD> as compression method identifier for applying LZS compression to TLS record payloads. 4) Section 3.1, 'HiFn' I guess is a company, but I didn't quite get that point in section 3.1, would it be better to drop it? old text: Starting with a sliding window compression history, similar to [LZ1], Hifn developed a new, enhanced compression algorithm identified as LZS. The LZS algorithm is a general-purpose lossless compression algorithm for use with a wide variety of data types. It's encoding method is very efficient, providing compression for strings as short as two octets in length. new text: Starting with a sliding window compression history, similar to [LZ1], a new, enhanced compression algorithm identified as LZS was developed. .... John
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-05-26)
Unknown
Reword the Abstract to avoid "[TLSComp]" and "[RFC2246]". In section 3.4.1, last paragraph, why aren't they called "compressed record" instead of "compressed packet" as well as "uncompressed record" instead of "uncompressed packet." The TLS term is "record."
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-05-20)
Unknown
The I-D referenced as [TLSComp] was recently published as RFC 3749.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-05-25)
Unknown
In 1.1, the draft says: For example, SSL is now increasingly being used as an alternative VPN connection. Compression services have long been associated with IPSec and PPTP VPN connections, so extending compression services to SSL VPN connections preserves the user experience for any VPN connection. This should be updated to read TLS. I also don't think TLS qualifies as a VPN in all cases (it is not always used as a topology-changing tunnel), and that this compression is valuable in cases where it is not a tunnel. So the authors may want to consider whether this is a valuable statement.