Re: Last Call: <draft-alakuijala-brotli-08.txt> (Brotli Compressed Data Format) to Informational RFC

Piotr Jurkiewicz <pjurkiew@agh.edu.pl> Tue, 22 March 2016 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <pjurkiew@agh.edu.pl>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E58312D1E5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YyJuczsqpY_N for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from poczta.agh.edu.pl (poczta.agh.edu.pl [149.156.96.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF2B112D19C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from poczta.agh.edu.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by poczta.agh.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96FC80219 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:56:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.55.96] by poczta.agh.edu.pl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:56:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:56:24 +0100
From: Piotr Jurkiewicz <pjurkiew@agh.edu.pl>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-alakuijala-brotli-08.txt> (Brotli Compressed Data Format) to Informational RFC
Message-ID: <3d3aee0ad161defc0fbb022ab9c4b455@agh.edu.pl>
X-Sender: pjurkiew@agh.edu.pl
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0BxSleYkVTUB2opS043BPXoC9_o>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:48:44 -0700
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:57:31 -0000

This document requests a registration in the HTTP Content Coding 
Registry. Its authors proposed the 'br' token, which is an abbreviation 
of the algorithm name ('brotli').

However, by reviewing existing entries in the HTTP Content Coding 
Registry, you can notice that so far established convention is to use 
*full* algorithm name, rather than its abbreviation. For example:

- 'gzip' is used instead of 'gz'
- 'compress' is used instead of 'z'
- etc.

This convention is also respected by implementations when they create 
unofficial/non-standardized tokens. For example lighttpd and lynx 
support bzip2 compression and use 'bzip2' token for indicating it, 
rather than 'bz2' abbreviation.

I would urge to not break this convention and maintain the consistency, 
that is, to select and register 'brotli' as a HTTP Content Coding token 
for Brotli Compressed Data Format, instead the 'br' abbreviation.

(As IANA website says that Registration Procedure for HTTP Transfer 
Coding Registry is 'IETF Review', I assume that ietf@ietf.org mailing 
list is the right place to raise these concerns. If not, please redirect 
me to a place where I would be able to reach people doing this review.)

Piotr Jurkiewicz
Department of Telecommunications
AGH University of Science and Technology
Kraków, Poland