Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-levine-application-gzip-01.txt

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, April 14, 2012 16:33 +0000 "John R. Levine"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Precisely because of the aggregation issue, "application/zip"
>> is a more complex case than "application/gzip" but we see a
>> lot of "application/x-zip" in the wild too.
> 
> But "application/zip" is registered.  See RFC 2912, section
> 4.5 for a suggestion about how one might say what's inside the
> ZIP file in an application/zip MIME part, and RFCs 2007 and
> 6362 for other references. I agree that in a more ideal world,
> the compression type would be in with the encoding, but that
> horse bolted 20 years ago.

Sorry.  Had lost track of application/zip.  Comments/objection
withdrawn -- this spec should not be victimized when we've
already made a worse mistake.   At some stage, we should rethink
the distinction that RFC 2045 tries to make, but I'm not
volunteering and am not going to hold my breath.

> The reason I'm doing application/gzip is that the DMARC
> project is sending reports as application/zip for something
> where gzip would be more suitable, and when I asked why, the
> document author said that application/zip is registered and
> application/gzip isn't.  So I'm levelling the playing field.

Seems reasonable.  
   john