- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:04:08 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Mahdavi, Jamshid" <jamshid.mahdavi@bluecoat.com>
Looks good to me. On 01/04/2010, at 7:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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! -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2010 17:04:40 UTC