Shared Brotli Compressed Data Format
draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-02-13
|
15 | Zoltan Szabadka | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-15.txt |
2025-02-13
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2025-02-13
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka |
2025-02-13
|
15 | Zoltan Szabadka | Uploaded new revision |
2025-02-12
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2025-02-10
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2025-02-10
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2025-02-10
|
14 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2025-02-10
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2025-02-10
|
14 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2025-02-10
|
14 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2025-02-10
|
14 | Jenny Bui | IESG has approved the document |
2025-02-10
|
14 | Jenny Bui | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2025-02-10
|
14 | Jenny Bui | Ballot approval text was generated |
2025-02-10
|
14 | Francesca Palombini | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2025-02-06
|
14 | Zoltan Szabadka | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-14.txt |
2025-02-06
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2025-02-06
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka |
2025-02-06
|
14 | Zoltan Szabadka | Uploaded new revision |
2024-12-05
|
13 | Barry Leiba | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing |
2024-12-05
|
13 | Barry Leiba | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Patrik Fältström was marked no-response |
2024-12-05
|
13 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2024-12-05
|
13 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-12-04
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2024-12-04
|
13 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-12-04
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review. |
2024-12-04
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2024-12-03
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2024-12-02
|
13 | Derrell Piper | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derrell Piper. Sent review to list. |
2024-12-01
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper |
2024-12-01
|
13 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-11-30
|
13 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-13 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-13 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments ### S8.2, S8.4.3, S9 * It would be good have a reference for "highwayhash" in this document. ## Nits ### S1.1 * "format format" -> "format" ### S4 * "one ore more" -> "one or more" |
2024-11-30
|
13 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2024-11-28
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work done in this document. Just some non-blocking comments. # Section 1.5.1 s/prefix code 110, prefix code 10/3-bit prefix code … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work done in this document. Just some non-blocking comments. # Section 1.5.1 s/prefix code 110, prefix code 10/3-bit prefix code b'110, 2-bit prefix code b'10/ Suggest adding a caption for the graphic and referring to it, using the aasvg tool for nicer rendering, and find a way to delineate the 24 bits per grouping. # Section 8.1 s/bytes 91, 0a, 42, 52/bytes 0x91, 0x0a, 0x42, 0x52/ s/must be 00/must be b'00 and the decoder should/must ???? if not b'00/ # Section 8.2 Add a normative reference to "Highwayhash" (I was about to ballot a DISCUSS on this issue). |
2024-11-28
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-11-27
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-11-27
|
13 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot comment] Note to the IESG: The document is a stand-alone addition to add dictionary support to brotli (RFC 7932) which was also … [Ballot comment] Note to the IESG: The document is a stand-alone addition to add dictionary support to brotli (RFC 7932) which was also published as Informational, AD sponsored. The use of the format documented in this doc was discussed in HTTPBIS as part of the work on draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary (which is in RFC Editor queue), which has a normative reference to this doc. The document describes a stream format that has been in use by brotli for several years and it was adopted by compression dictionaries as-is. In addition to the usual IETF LC reviews, two reviews were provided by people with expertise on compression (Yann Collet, creator of LZ4 and zstd, and Felix Handte, on the compression team at Meta). Given the specificity of the document, I evaluate this to be sufficient to publish. |
2024-11-27
|
13 | Francesca Palombini | Ballot comment text updated for Francesca Palombini |
2024-11-27
|
13 | Francesca Palombini | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-12-05 |
2024-11-27
|
13 | Francesca Palombini | Ballot has been issued |
2024-11-27
|
13 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
2024-11-27
|
13 | Francesca Palombini | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-11-27
|
13 | Francesca Palombini | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-11-26
|
13 | Zoltan Szabadka | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-13.txt |
2024-11-26
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-11-26
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka |
2024-11-26
|
13 | Zoltan Szabadka | Uploaded new revision |
2024-11-25
|
12 | Francesca Palombini | Extract from the Ballot text on document's quality: The document has undergone 4 weeks IETF Last Call following the process for AD sponsored documents. As … Extract from the Ballot text on document's quality: The document has undergone 4 weeks IETF Last Call following the process for AD sponsored documents. As a result of that LC, two reviews were provided by people with expertise on compression (Yann Collet, creator of LZ4 and zstd, and Felix Handte, on the compression team at Meta), in addition to the usual directorate and shepherd reviews. Given the specificity of the document, this was considered sufficient by the responsible AD. |
2024-11-25
|
12 | Francesca Palombini | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-11-25
|
12 | Francesca Palombini | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-11-25
|
12 | Francesca Palombini | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? No. The use of the format documented in the draft was discussed in the HTTP working group as part of the work on draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary but the shared brotli document itself was not a discussion point. The document describes a stream format that has been in use by brotli for several years and it was adopted by compression dictionaries as-is (with a prefix header defined in the compression dictionaries draft got the `dcb` encoding). 2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? No. The document and stream format were accepted as-is, it just wasn't a document that the HTTP working group needed to weigh-in on. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? N/A. It is not a protocol document but it is a stream/file format which has been implemented in the open-source brotli library: https://github.com/google/brotli ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No. The document is a stand-alone addition to add dictionary support to brotli (RFC 7932) which went through the same publication process as this document. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. The document describes the file/stream format in use by brotli when data is compressed with an external dictionary. It does not specify any encodings or other registrations. The registrations that use this stream format are documented in draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary which has had the appropriate reviews. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A. There are no sections of the document that are written in a formal language. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? There are security considerations (sec) that have been identified and documented. None of the other areas' common issues are applicable. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Informational. This document describes an already-in-use stream format so that other implementors can create and consume shared brotli streams. This use case is one of the main use cases for Informational documents. All datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. The authors have noted that there are no IPR disclosures that need to be filed. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. There are 6 authors and contributors, all of whom were involved in defining the shared brotli format and writing the draft. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. Yes, this document updates RFC 7932. That is clearly stated in the relevant sections. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This document does not have any IANA considerations. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2024-11-20
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2024-11-20
|
12 | Zoltan Szabadka | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-12.txt |
2024-11-20
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-11-20
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Robert Obryk , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Robert Obryk , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka , francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, zahed.sarker.ietf@gmail.com |
2024-11-20
|
12 | Zoltan Szabadka | Uploaded new revision |
2024-10-27
|
11 | Derrell Piper | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Derrell Piper. Sent review to list. |
2024-10-23
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-10-19
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper |
2024-10-17
|
11 | David Dong | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-10-17
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-10-11
|
11 | Nancy Cam-Winget | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Nancy Cam-Winget was rejected |
2024-10-01
|
11 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2024-09-28
|
11 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Patrik Fältström |
2024-09-28
|
11 | Gonzalo Salgueiro | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Gonzalo Salgueiro was rejected |
2024-09-28
|
11 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Gonzalo Salgueiro |
2024-09-27
|
11 | Francesca Palombini | Requested Last Call review by ARTART |
2024-09-27
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nancy Cam-Winget |
2024-09-26
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Patrick Meenan | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? No. The use of the format documented in the draft was discussed in the HTTP working group as part of the work on draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary but the shared brotli document itself was not a discussion point. The document describes a stream format that has been in use by brotli for several years and it was adopted by compression dictionaries as-is (with a prefix header defined in the compression dictionaries draft got the `dcb` encoding). 2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? No. The document and stream format were accepted as-is, it just wasn't a document that the HTTP working group needed to weigh-in on. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? N/A. It is not a protocol document but it is a stream/file format which has been implemented in the open-source brotli library: https://github.com/google/brotli ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No. The document is a stand-alone addition to add dictionary support to brotli (RFC 7932) which went through the same publication process as this document. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. The document describes the file/stream format in use by brotli when data is compressed with an external dictionary. It does not specify any encodings or other registrations. The registrations that use this stream format are documented in draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary which has had the appropriate reviews. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A. There are no sections of the document that are written in a formal language. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? There are security considerations (sec) that have been identified and documented. None of the other areas' common issues are applicable. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Informational. This document describes an already-in-use stream format so that other implementors can create and consume shared brotli streams. This use case is one of the main use cases for Informational documents. All datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. The authors have noted that there are no IPR disclosures that need to be filed. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. There are 6 authors, all of whom were involved in defining the shared brotli format and writing the draft. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This document does not have any IANA considerations. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-10-23): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format@ietf.org, eustas@google.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, jyrki@google.com, lode@google.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-10-23): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format@ietf.org, eustas@google.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, jyrki@google.com, lode@google.com, pmeenan@google.com, robryk@google.com, szabadka@google.com, thaidn@google.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Shared Brotli Compressed Data Format) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Shared Brotli Compressed Data Format' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-10-23. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification defines a data format for shared brotli compression, which adds support for shared dictionaries, large window and a container format to brotli. Shared dictionaries and large window support allow significant compression gains compared to regular brotli. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3147/ |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Francesca Palombini | Notification list changed to pmeenan@google.com from pmeenan@google.com, jyrki@google.com, thaidn@google.com, eustas@google.com, robryk@google.com, szabadka@google.com, lode@google.com |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Francesca Palombini | Last call was requested |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Francesca Palombini | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Francesca Palombini | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-09-25
|
11 | Francesca Palombini | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-09-24
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed) |
2024-09-24
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-09-24
|
11 | Zoltan Szabadka | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-11.txt |
2024-09-24
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-09-24
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Robert Obryk , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka |
2024-09-24
|
11 | Zoltan Szabadka | Uploaded new revision |
2024-09-23
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | AD review posted: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sfwmgXdJPBjfjdMKYU1oeDUNstk/ |
2024-09-23
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Zoltan Szabadka, Jyrki Alakuijala, Lode Vandevenne, Evgenii Kliuchnikov, Robert Obryk, Thai Duong (IESG state changed) |
2024-09-23
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2024-09-23
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2024-09-23
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-09-23
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed) |
2024-09-23
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | Assigned to Web and Internet Transport |
2024-09-23
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | State Change Notice email list changed to pmeenan@google.com, jyrki@google.com, thaidn@google.com, eustas@google.com, robryk@google.com, szabadka@google.com, lode@google.com |
2024-09-23
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-09-16
|
10 | Patrick Meenan | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? No. The use of the format documented in the draft was discussed in the HTTP working group as part of the work on draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary but the shared brotli document itself was not a discussion point. The document describes a stream format that has been in use by brotli for several years and it was adopted by compression dictionaries as-is (with a prefix header defined in the compression dictionaries draft got the `dcb` encoding). 2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? No. The document and stream format were accepted as-is, it just wasn't a document that the HTTP working group needed to weigh-in on. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? N/A. It is not a protocol document but it is a stream/file format which has been implemented in the open-source brotli library: https://github.com/google/brotli ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No. The document is a stand-alone addition to add dictionary support to brotli (RFC 7932) which went through the same publication process as this document. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. The document describes the file/stream format in use by brotli when data is compressed with an external dictionary. It does not specify any encodings or other registrations. The registrations that use this stream format are documented in draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary which has had the appropriate reviews. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A. There are no sections of the document that are written in a formal language. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? There are security considerations (sec) that have been identified and documented. None of the other areas' common issues are applicable. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Informational. This document describes an already-in-use stream format so that other implementors can create and consume shared brotli streams. This use case is one of the main use cases for Informational documents. All datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. The authors have noted that there are no IPR disclosures that need to be filed. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. There are 6 authors, all of whom were involved in defining the shared brotli format and writing the draft. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The reference to RFC7932 (brotli) should be normative instead of informative since it is necessary for implementing shared brotli. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). This document does not have any IANA considerations. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. N/A. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2024-09-06
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | Shepherding AD changed to Francesca Palombini |
2024-09-06
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | Notification list changed to pmeenan@google.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-09-06
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | Document shepherd changed to Patrick Meenan |
2024-09-06
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | Bringing back to the IETF stream as it is related to the HTTPBIS doc: draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-19 after discussion with ISE and authors. |
2024-09-06
|
10 | Francesca Palombini | Stream changed to IETF from ISE |
2024-09-04
|
10 | Eliot Lear | ISE state changed to In ISE Review from Submission Received |
2024-08-28
|
10 | Eliot Lear | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2024-08-28
|
10 | Eliot Lear | ISE state changed to Submission Received |
2024-08-28
|
10 | Eliot Lear | Stream changed to ISE from None |
2024-08-28
|
10 | Zoltan Szabadka | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-10.txt |
2024-08-28
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-08-28
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Robert Obryk , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka |
2024-08-28
|
10 | Zoltan Szabadka | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-01
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-09-28
|
09 | Zoltan Szabadka | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-09.txt |
2022-09-28
|
09 | Zoltan Szabadka | New version approved |
2022-09-28
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Robert Obryk , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka |
2022-09-28
|
09 | Zoltan Szabadka | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-27
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-07-26
|
08 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-08.txt |
2021-07-26
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-26
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Robert Obryk , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka |
2021-07-26
|
08 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |
2021-01-28
|
07 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-07.txt |
2021-01-28
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-01-28
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala , Lode Vandevenne , Robert Obryk , Thai Duong , Zoltan Szabadka |
2021-01-28
|
07 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |
2020-08-03
|
06 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-06.txt |
2020-08-03
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-08-03
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lode Vandevenne , Robert Obryk , Zoltan Szabadka , Thai Duong , Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Jyrki Alakuijala |
2020-08-03
|
06 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-11
|
05 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-05.txt |
2020-02-11
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-11
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Obryk , Jyrki Alakuijala , Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Thai Duong , Lode Vandevenne , Zoltan Szabadka |
2020-02-11
|
05 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-21
|
04 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-04.txt |
2019-08-21
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-21
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Obryk , Jyrki Alakuijala , Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Thai Duong , Lode Vandevenne , Zoltan Szabadka |
2019-08-21
|
04 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-22
|
03 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-03.txt |
2019-07-22
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-22
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Obryk , Jyrki Alakuijala , Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Thai Duong , Lode Vandevenne , Zoltan Szabadka |
2019-07-22
|
03 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |
2019-01-22
|
02 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-02.txt |
2019-01-22
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-01-22
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Obryk , Jyrki Alakuijala , Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Thai Duong , Lode Vandevenne , Zoltan Szabadka |
2019-01-22
|
02 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-03
|
01 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-01.txt |
2018-08-03
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-03
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jyrki Alakuijala , Robert Obryk , Lode Vandevenne , Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Zoltan Szabadka |
2018-08-03
|
01 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-05
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure: Google LLC's Statement about IPR related to draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format | |
2018-03-02
|
00 | Lode Vandevenne | New version available: draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-00.txt |
2018-03-02
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-02
|
00 | Lode Vandevenne | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Jyrki Alakuijala , Robert Obryk , Lode Vandevenne , Evgenii Kliuchnikov , Zoltan Szabadka |
2018-03-02
|
00 | Lode Vandevenne | Uploaded new revision |