Re: [lemonade] Compress, future algorithm and their arguments

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> A couple of people have proposed including general arguments for 
> future compression algorithms. At least that's how I read their mail.
>
> My basic position on such issues is that until we know at least a 
> little about what these arguments might be, it's best to not specify 
> them in any way. The best way to cater for the completely unknown is 
> to not specify it at all.
>
> I could attempt to specify it in the way Mark did in the RFC 3501 
> body-extension or Barry and Alexey in listext's return-option, but I'm 
> wary that a) it's practically untestable at present and b) that 
> if/when these unknown arguments become known, they just might not fit 
> into a list-of-lists.
>
> Because of this, I would prefer to leave it open. I would prefer to 
> state the syntax as
>     "COMPRESS" SP algorithm
> and if some day an RFC comes along and needs arguments, it can extend 
> the syntax somewhat generally, and it can do at least as good a job 
> then as we can now.

I agree.


_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
lemonade at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade