Skip to main content

The IMAP COMPRESS Extension
draft-ietf-lemonade-compress-08

Yes

(Chris Newman)
(Sam Hartman)
(Ted Hardie)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Bill Fenner)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ross Callon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-01-23)
See dialogue with Gen-ART reviewer archived starting with
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg01652.html

Authors may suggest small changes as a result

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-04-29)

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2007-01-24)
    Compared to PPP compression (see [RFC1962]) and modem-based
    compression (see [MNP] and [V42BIS]), COMPRESS offers much better
    compression efficiency. 

This is only true for IMAP data, of course. This is a bit like comparing apples and oranges given the different layers in the stack that these protocols operate. But, if you are going to bring it up, perhaps there should be some discussion about not running compression simultaneously at multiple layers? There is some discussion WRT TLS layering here, but nothing about PPP or L1 compression. For example, if PPP compression is running (perhaps because there is a lot of traffic on the link other than IMAP), should one run IMAP compression as well? Should the compression work differently in this case (e.g., focus on IMAP-specific compression vs. general algorithmic compression that could be covered by the lower layer).

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-01-22)
  From SecDir Review by Pat Cain:

  The last sentence of section 2 says that this document adds "a new
  command."  I was expecting a "to <something>", maybe "IMAP" (?)
  to finish the sentence.