IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sat, 14 April 2012 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198B321F85D6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lz2EikqJ8Ozk for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FAE21F85E5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 44831 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2012 16:33:48 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=af1e.4f89a6ec.k1204; bh=5s2ZLRSRktm1Dumv7NzlZoI8X6QzNofeHR3zwmTn2GU=; b=NjOlNM+uOoHdEjJUAf4no7+R5lzKeSM9TDdqnTnAlFcTDT7aTSuM1FbrTjC95AmiDMceo2uFBi1AKfnUgJ7FPITXH608hThBal7G0alPmKAdlZTHKQ++vlQA1ZJeFvoVbDHQg6c/tiBzVokPZKrPIT8PinR41VEEv+s1dYUv1A8=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 14 Apr 2012 16:33:26 -0000
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:33:46 +0000
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1204141621250.94187@joyce.lan>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <A66F1731667F902A3BE63855@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <20120414141741.69972.qmail@joyce.lan> <A66F1731667F902A3BE63855@PST.JCK.COM>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-levine-application-gzip-01.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:33:50 -0000

> 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.

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.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email