RE: ACFC
James Carlson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Vishwas Manral writes: > I had another small follow up question. When would we (if we ever would) > have data traffic having uncompressed fields, even when compression was > negotiated (both ACFC and PFC)? Any time the sender feels like it. Perhaps I'm not understanding the question correctly. If you're actually asking whether this is "common" or not, or if there are particular deployment scenarios in which it happens, I don't know. If your goal here is somehow to avoid implementing this correctly, so that all your system handles is header-compressed messages, then I'd strongly caution against that. Being more strict than what the RFC requires is a good way to end up with interoperability problems. > I know the RFC states that we should treat both un-compressed and > compressed header fields in the same way when compression is negotiated. And, indeed, you must. If you don't like that, then you can always refuse to use these options instead. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[email protected]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext