Jonathan Neve wrote:

>J
>
>>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...
>

It is a design goal to fold all link options in the lpb (link parameter
block). In the proposal, the options are encryption and compression.
At could handle options (not that any come to mind offhand).

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

No FB 2 is frozen.