[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Bug in the bindings doc; wrong RFC
> So, the first observation is that it really wouldn't be that heinous to > use rfc1951, if we wanted to do that -- as long as we restricted CM to > 8 (deflate). I still think we were correct in specifying rfc1950, > however, so let's do some experiments... We specified 1951, not 1950. 1951 is DEFLATE and 1950 is zlib. > In the first case, the 'nowrap' argument to the Deflater is false (so > the ZLIB header and footer are added). In the second case, the 'nowrap' > argument is true, so we just get the deflated data. Note that I was > deflating zero-length data in these tests, so all we are seeing are the > headers etc. Did you understand the thing in there about the dummy bit required with nowrap? That's what had me worried. Otherwise it's just a simple case of the class names being a bit off, since the javadocs do say that it's for zlib. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]