Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-zstd-window-size-01

Thank you for the quick review!

I filed an issue with your feedback at
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2838 and replied with the
following:

> I see that this document updates the IANA “HTTP Content Coding Registry”
> registration to reference this doc instead of 8878. I think it should
> actually reference both.


Although I'm open to adding a reference to RFC 8878 as well, I'm just
wondering if referencing both docs would confuse people since we want to
make sure that they see the size restriction before using the token.

Additionally, has the wg considered updating the media type registration
> made in
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8878#name-the-application-zstd-media-
> for consistency? I am ok with not updating it, as the link is also done via
> the document, but just checking for consistency.


This doc is specifically for HTTP Content Coding use cases so IIUC we don't
really want to restrict the media type itself. Applications are free to
transfer zstd archives that used any window size around as files, but we
just don't want to require HTTP clients/servers to (de)compress with window
sizes above 8 MB.

Thanks,
Nidhi

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:30 AM Francesca Palombini <
francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> wrote:

> # AD Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-zstd-window-size-01
>
>
>
> cc @fpalombini
>
>
>
> Thank you for this document, short and to the point. I only have one
> comment/question, before initiating the IETF last call.
>
>
>
> Francesca
>
>
>
> ## Comments
>
>
>
> ### Reference in IANA registries
>
>
>
> I see that this document updates the IANA “HTTP Content Coding Registry”
> registration to reference this doc instead of 8878. I think it should
> actually reference both.
>
>
>
> Additionally, has the wg considered updating the media type registration
> made in
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8878#name-the-application-zstd-media-
> for consistency? I am ok with not updating it, as the link is also done via
> the document, but just checking for consistency.
>
>
>
> ## Notes
>
>
>
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use
> the
>
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
>
> individual GitHub issues.
>
>
>
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
>
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
>