Re: Last Call: <draft-levine-application-gzip-02.txt> (The application/zlib and application/gzip media types) to Informational RFC

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Sat, 05 May 2012 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
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 C984921F84A6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 oRqZKGSVTaEi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDBB21F84A0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OF3H57CULC00142Q@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OENEYWYFI80006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01OF3H54UZIS0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:26:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-levine-application-gzip-02.txt> (The application/zlib and application/gzip media types) to Informational RFC
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 04 May 2012 19:11:04 +0000" <20120504191104.24520.qmail@joyce.lan>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <2B5D4A5F530D7C2C1E81518A@PST.JCK.COM> <20120504191104.24520.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 05 May 2012 02:29:18 -0000

> >I do believe that, someday, someone should try to write up an
> >up-to-date description of the difference that recognizes the
> >fact that compressed files are in use as media types with
> >application/zip (in assorted spellings) and application/gzip
> >(from this spec and in assorted spellings) as examples.  But I
> >now believe it is a separate task that should not block this
> >document or registration.

That pretty much sums up my view as well.

> I'll be happy to do that if I can ever find enough spare time to write
> it.

> You're right, it would be nice if there were some way to distinguish
> containers from content in MIME types.  But given the existing
> historical mess, and that some kinds of compression are just a
> different way to encode a bunch of bits (zlib) whereas others are more
> like a small filesystem (zip and tgz), even if we could start with a
> clean sheet it's not obvious to me what would be the best thing to do.

This is further complicated by the fact that there are now a number of types
defined that are actually zip with specific semantics attached to the content.
There are also types defined for use only within such containers.

				Ned