Hi Zoltan, Thank you for your feedback! We have updated the document as requested. Please see below for comments and updated files.
> On Aug 25, 2025, at 2:44 AM, Zoltan Szabadka <szaba...@google.com> wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > I noticed some editorial changes that, in my opinion, changed the meaning of > the text. Could you restore these to the original version, or maybe propose a > wording that is even clearer? > > Thank you, > Zoltan > > ------------------ > In Section 3.1: > > Original: > > If the dictionary is context dependent, it includes a lookup table of > 64 word list and transform list combinations. > > Current: > If the dictionary is context dependent, it includes a lookup table of > a 64-word list and transform list combinations. > > I think the original text should be restored here. The intended meaning was > that each entry of the lookup table is a word list and transform list > combination and there are 64 such entries. We appreciate the helpful explanation! The original text has been restored. > -------------------- > In Section 8.4.10. The "per chunks listed:" heading got concatenated to the > end of the previous field (maybe an XML formatting mistake?). I think it > should remain in a separate line, as in the original: > > Current: > varint: Pointer into the file where the repeat metadata chunks are > located or 0 if they are not present per chunk listed: > > varint: Pointer into the file where this chunk begins. > > > New: > > varint: Pointer into the file where the repeat metadata chunks are located or > 0 if they are not present > > per chunk listed: varint: Pointer into the file where this chunk begins. > ------------------------ Thank you for catching this. We have updated this section to match the original formatting as closely as possible. Please let us know if the updates are correct. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841 Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 9:51 PM Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > Hi Authors, > > Zoltan - Thank you for the confirmation. We have updated the indentation per > your response. > > All - Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do > not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any > further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We > will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the > publication process. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841 > > Thank you, > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > On Aug 22, 2025, at 5:47 AM, Zoltan Szabadka <szaba...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:33 PM Madison Church > > <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Zoltan, > > > > Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document based on your > > response to our questions. Please see one followup query inline. Updated > > files have been posted below. > > > > > 19) <!-- [rfced] May we update the following unordered list into a > > > definition list for consistency with the rest of Section 8.2? > > > > > > Original: > > > * uncompressed: the raw bytes > > > > > > * if "keep decoder", the continuation of the compressed stream > > > which was interrupted at the end of the previous chunk. The > > > decoder from the previous chunk must be used and its state > > > it had at the end of the previous chunk must be kept at the > > > start of the decoding of this chunk. > > > > > > * brotli: the bytes are in brotli format [RFC7932] > > > > > > * shared brotli: the bytes are in the shared brotli format > > > specified in Section 7 > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > uncompressed: The raw bytes. > > > > > > "keep decoder": If "keep decoder", the continuation of the > > > compressed stream > > > that was interrupted at the end of the previous chunk. The > > > decoder from the previous chunk must be used and its state > > > it had at the end of the previous chunk must be kept at the > > > start of the decoding of this chunk. > > > > > > brotli: The bytes are in brotli format [RFC7932]. > > > > > > shared brotli: The bytes are in the shared brotli format > > > specified in Section 7. > > > --> > > > > > > The original unordered list format is correct here, since only one of > > > these is included, depending on the CODEC bits. > > > > > > However, looking at this part now, the "X bytes: extra header bytes" and > > > "remaining bytes: the chunk contents" should be on the same indentation > > > level. > > > > Thank you for the clarification! Regarding the indentation level of "X > > bytes: extra header bytes" and "remaining bytes: the chunk contents", > > please let us know how the text should be aligned. (That is, should "X > > bytes: extra header bytes" be indented further to align with "remaining > > bytes: the chunk contents"? Or should "remaining bytes: the chunk contents" > > be outdented to align with the current placement of "X bytes: extra header > > bytes"?) > > > > The "remaining bytes: the chunk contents" should be outdented to align with > > the current placement of "X bytes: extra header bytes". > > > > Current: > > X bytes: Extra header bytes, depending on CHUNK_TYPE. If present, > > they are specified in the subsequent sections. > > > > remaining bytes: The chunk contents. The uncompressed data in > > the chunk content depends on CHUNK_TYPE and is specified in the > > subsequent sections. The compressed data has following format > > depending on CODEC: > > > > * uncompressed: The raw bytes. > > > > * If "keep decoder", the continuation of the compressed stream > > that was interrupted at the end of the previous chunk. The > > decoder from the previous chunk must be used and its state > > it had at the end of the previous chunk must be kept at the > > start of the decoding of this chunk. > > > > * brotli: The bytes are in brotli format [RFC7932]. > > > > * shared brotli: The bytes are in the shared brotli format > > specified in Section 7. > > > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841.xml > > > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > > side) > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841 > > > > Thank you, > > Madison Church > > RFC Production Center > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
