idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pppext-hpppc-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-23) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([2], [1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 125: '... This value MAY be compressed when P...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 58 has weird spacing: '...ink and no re...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 1993) is 11148 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 156, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '1' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '3' Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Jim Petty 2 Internet Draft Hewlett-Packard 3 expires in six months October 1993 5 PPP Hewlett-Packard Packet-by-Packet Compression (HP PPC) Protocol 6 draft-ietf-pppext-hpppc-00.txt 8 Status of this Memo 10 This document is the product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Working 11 Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should 12 be submitted to the ietf-ppp@ucdavis.edu mailing list. 14 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 16 This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working 17 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, 18 and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 19 working documents as Internet Drafts. 21 Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 22 months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by 23 other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet 24 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a 25 ``working draft'' or ``work in progress.'' 27 Please check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the 28 internet-drafts Shadow Directories on nic.ddn.mil, nnsc.nsf.net, 29 nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com, or munnari.oz.au to learn the 30 current status of any Internet Draft. 32 Abstract 34 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for 35 transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links. 37 The PPP Compression Control Protocol [2] provides a method to 38 negotiate and utilize compression protocols over PPP encapsulated 39 links. 41 This document describes the use of the HP PPC compression algorithm 42 for compressing PPP encapsulated packets. 44 1. Introduction 46 The HP PPC compression algorithm is an improvement on the existing 47 implementations of the LZ variant known as LZ2. In particular the 48 scheme uses an intermediate dictionary initialization. This method 49 allows for a dictionary with fewer entries than the alphabet size. 50 Thus, compression is possible with very small dictionaries, requiring 51 very little memory. This is particularly attractive for networks 52 where each packet is compressed independently. 54 Other enhancements include run length encoding and parameter 55 initialization based on input packet size. 57 Since this is a packet by packet scheme, only one compression 58 dictionary is needed per link and no reliable link is required or 59 necessary. 61 If the compressed packet is larger than the input packet, the input 62 packet is sent uncompressed. 64 1.1. Licensing 66 This paragraph will contain some lawyer and management approved 67 words. 69 The contact person for evaluation under NDA and licensing is: 71 Mary Ryan 72 Hewlett-Packard MS R3NF3 73 8000 Foothills Blvd 74 Roseville, CA 95747 76 (916)785-5744 Fax: (916)786-9185 78 EMail: Mary_Ryan@hp5200.desk.hp.com 80 2. HP PPC Packets 82 Before any HP PPC packets may be communicated, PPP must reach the 83 Network-Layer Protocol phase, and the CCP Control Protocol must reach 84 the Opened state. 86 Exactly one HP PPC datagram is encapsulated in the PPP Information 87 field, where the PPP Protocol field indicates type hex 00FD 88 (compressed datagram). 90 The maximum length of the HP PPC datagram transmitted over a PPP link 91 is the same as the maximum length of the Information field of a PPP 92 encapsulated packet. 94 Reliability and Sequencing 96 Each HP PPC packet is considered a separate entity. Therefore, the 97 compression tables are reset for each packet. Reliable links are not 98 necessary. Packets need not be delivered in sequence. 100 Data Expansion 102 Although the compression algorithm might occasionally expand a data 103 packet, there is no expansion in HP PPC since such packets are sent 104 uncompressed. 106 2.1. Packet Format 108 The encapsulation is the same for every packet. 110 0 1 2 3 111 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | PPP Protocol |C| Uncompressed Length | 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 | Compressed Data ... 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 PPP Protocol 120 The PPP Protocol field is described in the Point-to-Point Protocol 121 Encapsulation [1]. 123 When the HP PPC compression protocol is successfully negotiated by 124 the PPP Compression Control Protocol [2], the value is 00FD hex. 125 This value MAY be compressed when Protocol-Field-Compression is 126 negotiated. 128 C 129 In the off chance that a packet expanded during compression, this bit 130 is set. 132 0 = compressed 133 1 = uncompressed 135 Uncompressed Length 137 This is the length of the uncompressed data. It is used as a limit 138 during the decompression process. 140 3. Configuration Option 142 No configuration option is required. 144 Security Considerations 146 Security considerations are not discussed in this memo. 148 References 150 [1] Simpson, W.A., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", work in 151 progress. 153 [2] Rand, D., "The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)", work in 154 progress. 156 [3] Lempel, Abraham and Seroussi, Gadiel., "Compression Using Small 157 Dictionaries with Applications to Network Packets", HP 158 Technical Report HPL-92-112, Patent application, HP docket No. 159 1092545, 1993. 161 Acknowledgments 163 Original algorithm and mathematical advice provided by Gadiel 164 Seroussi (HP). 166 Initial testing of algorithm by Gadiel Seroussi and Dave Langley 167 (HP). 169 Bill Simpson provided the table of contents macros. 171 Chair's Address 173 The working group can be contacted via the current chair: 175 Fred Baker 176 Advanced Computer Communications 177 315 Bollay Drive 178 Santa Barbara, California 93117 180 EMail: fbaker@acc.com 182 Author's Address 184 Questions about this memo can also be directed to: 186 Jim Petty 187 Hewlett-Packard Company 188 8000 Foothills Boulevard, MS R3NF3 189 Roseville, CA 95747 191 (916)785-5744 Fax: (916)786-9185 193 EMail: jpetty@hprnd.rose.hp.com 195 1. Introduction .......................................... 1 196 1.1 Licensing ....................................... 1 198 2. HP PPC Packets ........................................ 2 199 2.1 Packet Format ................................... 3 201 3. Configuration Option .................................. 3 203 SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 4 205 REFERENCES ................................................... 4 207 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. 4 209 CHAIR'S ADDRESS .............................................. 5 211 AUTHOR'S ADDRESS ............................................. 5