Re: [dispatch] Zstandard compression

Mark Nottingham <> Thu, 02 November 2017 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11AF13F6B0 for <>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=EnlzCxX0; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=N3YDmwg+
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z38wtU9Ra_Tq for <>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EEBB13F6AC for <>; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B7320F62; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:22:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:22:11 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=FyidIcmhi6bzr5YGjoio9x63WsPwm T85Sc/MIqJp6NY=; b=EnlzCxX0fuSVbtgghCG9g85ZnFogr0y84GnCMRiRRRViQ WzE2w2BrrRU0inDTvh0TEJyewaPX3In7eelaBXThUuI94SW6YmhmZzNCuFxNP9G3 QiKgErUNs3clCCPywoDHJ1hp+EZ/zb6SDBzzw5ey3klETpkaMAWHcj7ktRxB1vZy hcRh+uR2ESxmTah+u0LE4knvFfZsnicmWj+Ih8A++8Cm96GpL+jg9EUptlkNZ1V9 ca7o5T6uVbQXuBbVC3HFYzvVS10MFBreYGHJSpd/CGZI4YaaMaPN9cCdJoQ4vCtP CZ2EEQ2SmbchyLfhZ8kouZoUWREuC4FQwjnq1zB8g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=FyidIc mhi6bzr5YGjoio9x63WsPwmT85Sc/MIqJp6NY=; b=N3YDmwg+Cef1mXkuxVY1j1 h1FmaB5AQN+d4pToSNf2f7Gt/Ow3hY26gxPOR6RV0uXCyyfihJGwr6Q1e6PD77Ws Wxl1DjrQ08oYDXrDT23ucBZMRJTb+h8XFKxYByvUqFaglO7O0KxDuHgIO5AHSmst h4g4YUBwO4NrYFRu6FUt37TJG60uZj/CqVx4NIxMkFUUAhVjAsPjf/BxKRqeuC46 n8pZwi0uyx540E3zTy3cHhsOxZO4dHJ9X4ckY2oy5WvXkZlQELB2ZQaDaNeaieI4 K+FFlqNPdWSXja6m1TCsSgctb9s5OfMePv7BtUKnjkPjqyyBXNUKg5qucMoQwlBg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:o6j7Wf7gJ8qZqT6sOnG2HD2R2OFkqHgFwvXqlUr6la4p_dE5ypFSXQ>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C396B7FAED; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:22:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:22:07 +1100
Cc: DISPATCH list <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.7)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Zstandard compression
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 23:22:14 -0000

On 3 Nov 2017, at 10:01 am, Murray S. Kucherawy <> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> To be clear - HTTPbis needs a heads up and might want to have discuss the registration of the content-coding (Section 3.2). The whole spec probably belongs elsewhere.
> Are you chartered to take it?  Or at a minimum, do you want me to show up and talk about it?  Or if it would be worthwhile I can try to get the main protagonists to join remotely.

If "it" is the content-coding registration, yes. If you want to give a five-minute hand-wave, we can probably fit you in, but it may be too early.

I keep on forgetting that IETF Review (the registry policy for content-codings) doesn't require standards track; you just need IESG approval on a document. Brotli did this on an Informational document, and you could do likewise.

So AIUI it really depends on how much review / input you want on the document; having a full WG, going AD sponsored (if you can find one), or just Informational with IESG review are all options. All in the same document and split documents are also options.


Mark Nottingham