In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:10:26 +0100, "Peter
'Luna' Runestig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
peter+openssl-dev> Gregory Stark wrote:
peter+openssl-dev> > Oops, I meant 2246. And reading it more
peter+openssl-dev> > carefully, I agree with your interpretation. The
peter+openssl-dev> > dictionary need not be reset. Compression state
peter+openssl-dev> > can and should be maintained across records.
peter+openssl-dev>
peter+openssl-dev> So, is anyone working on improving the zlib code
peter+openssl-dev> according to these new guidelines?
Well, I've got a couple of issues with such a change:
1. Is OpenSSL really the only implementation that has ZLIB at all? I
believe there aren't any compression numbers defined for ZLIB yet
(are have they actually been defined by now?), so I guess it might
be tricky to implement in any case...
If OpenSSL isn't alone with ZLIB compression, perhaps we should
look at interoperability?
2. How does that affect communication with programs running older
versions of OpenSSL? I assume that a change in dictionary reseting
will also change the actual data that's resulting from compression.
Will that be a problem?
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
