Jim Starkey wrote:

>I'm posting this proposal to both the devel and architecture lists
>because of general interest, but I would like to restrict discussion to
>only the architecture list.
>
>The goal of this proposal is to twofold. First, it is a compatible
>extension to the remote protocol to handle the problems of encryption
>and (if desired) data compression. Second, it is a reformulation of the
>remote implementation architecture to simplify and support future growth.
>
>

This sounds good (to me). Will it be possible to have data compression
without encryption? Both are useful, but not necessarily needed in the
same circumstances...

Also, will these changes make it into FB 2 or rather FB 3?

Thanks!
Jonathan Neve.