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

Hi Francesca,

Sounds good! Just landed PR #2839
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2839> to add the reference.

Thanks,
Nidhi

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:52 PM Francesca Palombini <
francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Nidhi, thanks for the quick reply.
>
>
>
> Re adding the reference to RFC 8878 as well in the IANA registry, I still
> think it should be done: the Zstandard protocol mentioned in the
> description of the IANA registration is still only defined in 8878 (I would
> have another opinion if this document replaced 8878, but that’s not the
> case here).
>
>
>
> Ok for the media type, sounds fine as is.
>
>
>
> I will request the last call now.
>
>
>
> Francesca
>
>
>
> *From: *Nidhi Jaju <nidhijaju@google.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 23 July 2024 at 10:08
> *To: *Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
> *Cc: *draft-ietf-httpbis-zstd-window-size@ietf.org <
> draft-ietf-httpbis-zstd-window-size@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <
> ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *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
>
>