Skip to main content

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