Subject: Re: #73: httpbis and deflate compression...

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:45:26 +0200

On 27.03.2010 00:10, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Thanks, Mahdavi.
>
> The proposal we've had in the ticket<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/73>  for eight months is to add:
>
> "Note that some incorrect implementations may send deflate encoding without a zlib wrapper when using this encoding."
>
> The proposal below seems like an elaboration of this:
>
> "NOTE:  Some implementations have incorrectly used only the RFC1951 encoding when returning data using the "deflate" content-coding.  Implementers should be aware the a compliant implementation of the "deflate" content-coding should follow the "ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification" as defined in RFC1950."
>
> Any objections to this?
> ...

I didn't have objections; but while adding this I came to the conclusion 
that it would be better to clarify the definition itself, and then only 
add a short notice wrt broken implementations.

I ended up with -- hopefully this is acceptable for everyone:

-- snip --
6.2.2.2.  Deflate Coding

    The "deflate" format is defined as the "deflate" compression
    mechanism (described in [RFC1951]) used inside the "zlib" data format
    ([RFC1950]).

       Note: Some incorrect implementations send the "deflate" compressed
       data without the zlib wrapper.
-- snip --

See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/801>.

Best regards, Julian

PS: thanks to all the feedback!

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:04:08 -0700

Looks good to me.

On 01/04/2010, at 7:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> I didn't have objections; but while adding this I came to the conclusion that it would be better to clarify the definition itself, and then only add a short notice wrt broken implementations.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/