Thai responded with his approval on September 17th. Maybe it got missed? We should just be waiting on Jyrki at this point.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 9:56 AM Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Evengii, > > Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 > status page (please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841). Note > that we have not made any additional updates per Mike’s guidance. > > Once we receive approvals from Jyrki and Thai, we will move forward with > publication. > > Thank you! > > Madison Church > RFC Editor > > > On Sep 25, 2025, at 7:55 AM, Evgenii Kliuchnikov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I approve then. > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 5:21 PM Mike Bishop <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm not certain about #2, but #1 and #3 definitely appear to be breaking > changes. I'd recommend strongly against making breaking changes to a format > in AUTH48 — this is a time for editorial corrections to the document as > approved, and catching instances where an editorial change accidentally > created an unintended technical change. > > > > From: Evgenii Kliuchnikov <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 10:58 AM > > To: Madison Church <[email protected]> > > Cc: Lode Vandevenne <[email protected]>; Jyrki Alakuijala < > [email protected]>; Zoltan Szabadka <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mike Bishop <[email protected]>; > Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]>; RFC Editor < > [email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9841 > <draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-15> for your review > > Hello. > > > > I propose the following amendments: > > 1) > > Current: > > "Then distance values of pairs in range (max allowed distance + 1).. > (LZ77_DICTIONARY_LENGTH + max allowed distance) are interpreted as > references starting in the LZ77 dictionary at the byte at > dictionary_address. If length is longer than (LZ77_DICTIONARY_LENGTH - > dictionary_address), then the reference continues to copy (length - > LZ77_DICTIONARY_LENGTH + dictionary_address) bytes from the regular LZ77 > window starting at the beginning." > > Proposed: > > "Then distance values of pairs in range (max allowed distance + 1).. > (LZ77_DICTIONARY_LENGTH + max allowed distance) are interpreted as > references starting in the LZ77 dictionary at the byte at > dictionary_address. If length is greater than (LZ77_DICTIONARY_LENGTH - > dictionary_address), then the reference is invalid." > > Rationale: > > Simplifies both encoder and decoder. Reduces ambiguity of determining of > what is "window starting" at the moment of continuation of copying. Most > likely "continuation" feature brings nearly 0 effect on density. > > > > 2) > > Current: > > "SIZE_BITS_BY_LENGTH. An array of 28 unsigned 8-bit integers, indexed by > word lengths 4 to 31. The value represents log2(number of words of this > length), with the exception of 0 meaning 0 words of this length. The max > allowed length value is 15 bits. OFFSETS_BY_LENGTH is computed from this as > OFFSETS_BY_LENGTH[i + 1] = OFFSETS_BY_LENGTH[i] + (SIZE_BITS_BY_LENGTH[i] ? > (i << SIZE_BITS_BY_LENGTH[i]) : 0)." > > Proposed: > > "SIZE_BITS_BY_LENGTH. An array of 28 unsigned 8-bit integers, indexed by > word lengths 4 to 31. The value 0 means 0 words of this length. Values in > range 1..15 represent power of two for number of words. OFFSETS_BY_LENGTH > is computed from this as OFFSETS_BY_LENGTH[i + 1] = OFFSETS_BY_LENGTH[i] + > (SIZE_BITS_BY_LENGTH[i] ? (i << SIZE_BITS_BY_LENGTH[i]) : 0)." > > Rationale: > > Though formulae uses bit shift for offset it is unclear that number of > words is exact power of two (or is zero). Moreover log2 is usually a > floating-point function. > > > > 3) > > Current: > > "STRING_LENGTH. The length of the entry contents. 0 for the last > (terminating) entry of the transform list. For other entries, STRING_LENGTH > must be in range 1..255. The 0 entry must be present and must be the last > byte of the PREFIX_SUFFIX_LENGTH bytes of prefix/suffix data, else the > stream must be rejected as invalid." > > Proposed: > > "STRING_LENGTH. The length of the entry contents. 0 for the last > (terminating) entry of the transform list. For other entries, STRING_LENGTH > must be in range 1..16. The 0 entry must be present and must be the last > byte of the PREFIX_SUFFIX_LENGTH bytes of prefix/suffix data, else the > stream must be rejected as invalid." > > Rationale: > > The maximum word size is 32. By adding 255 bytes of suffix and prefix it > becomes 542. It is unlikely that long prefixes/suffixes will give > considerable density improvements. But it will definitely make efficient > encoder implementations much more complex. Decoder also have minor > drawbacks from too-long transformed words. Altogether, if all the > stringlets have maximal size, stringlet library becomes 64KiB long; with > proposal - a bit over 4KiB is maximum. > > > > Best regards, > > Eugene. > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 5:05 PM Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Jyrki, Thai, Evgenii, > > > > This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you > regarding this document’s readiness for publication. > > > > Please review the AUTH48 status page ( > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841) for further information and the > previous messages in this thread. > > > > Thank you! > > > > Madison Church > > RFC Production Center > > > > > On Sep 11, 2025, at 8:45 AM, Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Lode, > > > > > > Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 > status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841). > > > > > > Once we receive approvals from Jyrki, Thai, and Evgenii, we will move > this document forward in the publication process. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > Madison Church > > > RFC Production Center > > > > > >> On Sep 11, 2025, at 3:38 AM, Lode Vandevenne <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hello Madison, > > >> > > >> I also approve the RFC for publication > > >> > > >> Thank you and kind regards, > > >> Lode Vandevenne > > >> > > >> Am Di., 9. Sept. 2025 um 23:52 Uhr schrieb Madison Church < > [email protected]>: > > >> Hi All, > > >> > > >> Mike - Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval as AD > on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841). > > >> > > >> Authors - We now await approvals from Jyrki, Thai, Evgenii, and Lode. > Once we receive all author approvals, we will move this document forward in > the publication process. > > >> > > >> Thank you! > > >> > > >> Madison Church > > >> RFC Production Center > > >> > > >>> On Sep 9, 2025, at 2:37 PM, Mike Bishop <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> It's related to work in the HTTP WG, so I'll take it. I've reviewed > the Auth48 changes, including that sentence in the abstract, and I > approve.From: Madison Church <[email protected]> > > >>> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 4:26 PM > > >>> To: Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]>; Mike Bishop < > [email protected]> > > >>> Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected]<[email protected]>; Jyrki Alakuijala <[email protected]>; > Zoltan Szabadka <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> > > >>> Subject: Re: [ADs - Gorry and Mike] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9841 > <draft-vandevenne-shared-brotli-format-15> for your review > > >>> Hi Gorry and Mike, > > >>> > > >>> We are unsure who the responsible AD is for this document, so we are > requesting that one of you (as WIT ADs) review and approve an update that > was made to the last sentence of the Abstract (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48diff.html). > > >>> > > >>> Original: > > >>> This document updates RFC 7932. > > >>> > > >>> Current: > > >>> This document specifies an extension to the method defined in RFC > 7932. > > >>> > > >>> Thank you! > > >>> > > >>> Madison Church > > >>> RFC Production Center > > >>> > > >>>> On Sep 8, 2025, at 3:14 PM, Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Zoltan, > > >>>> > > >>>> Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841). > > >>>> > > >>>> Once we receive all approvals listed on the AUTH48 status page, we > will move this document forward in the publication process. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thank you! > > >>>> > > >>>> Madison Church > > >>>> RFC Production Center > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Sep 5, 2025, at 3:36 AM, Zoltan Szabadka <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi Madison, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I approve the RFC for publication. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thank you, > > >>>>> Zoltan Szabadka > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 8:31 PM Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Hi Zoltan, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thank you for your reply! We have updated the files with your > requested changes and posted them below. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Additionally, note that we have updated the text below from > Section 9 to match the text that appears in Section 9.2 of RFC-to-be-9842 > (draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-19), which is also in Cluster > 509 and normatively references this document (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C509). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Original: > > >>>>> Not only can the dictionary reveal information about the > compressed > > >>>>> data, but vice versa, data compressed with the dictionary can > reveal > > >>>>> the contents of the dictionary when an adversary can control > parts of > > >>>>> data to compress and see the compressed size. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Current: > > >>>>> The dictionary can reveal information about the compressed data > and > > >>>>> vice versa. That is, data compressed with the dictionary can > reveal > > >>>>> contents of the dictionary when an adversary can control parts of > the > > >>>>> data to compress and see the compressed size. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Updated files (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 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Updated diff files: > > >>>>> 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) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Once we receive all approvals listed on the AUTH48 status page > (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841), we will move this > document forward in the publication process. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thank you, > > >>>>> Madison Church > > >>>>> RFC Production Center > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Sep 4, 2025, at 2:32 AM, Zoltan Szabadka <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I went over the diffs again, see below a few more minor findings. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Section 1.5 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> "bytes with the MSB are also written on the left" should be > changed to "we also write bytes with the MSB on the left" > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Section 3.1 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> "If the dictionary is context dependent, it includes a lookup > table of a 64 word list and transform list combinations." > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Here the indefinite article before 64 feels wrong, since it > refers to combinations, which is plural, so "of a 64" should be changed to > "of 64". > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Section 5. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> LZ7711 --> LZ77 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 4:38 PM Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> Hi Authors, *Francesca, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Authors - This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear > back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> *Francesca - As responsible AD for this document, please review > and approve the following change in the Abstract (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48diff.html). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Please review the AUTH48 status page ( > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841) for further information and the > previous messages in this thread. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thank you! > > >>>>>> Madison Church > > >>>>>> RFC Production Center > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2025, at 2:07 PM, Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi Authors, *Francesca, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Authors - Thank you for your replies! We have updated the > document per your request. Please see below for updated files. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> *Francesca - As responsible AD for this document, please review > and approve the following change in the Abstract (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9841-auth48diff.html). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> This document updates RFC 7932. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Current: > > >>>>>>> This document specifies an extension to the method defined in > RFC 7932. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> 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: > > >>>>>>> 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 page, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9841. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Once we receive all approvals, we will move this document > forward in the publication process. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thank you, > > >>>>>>> Madison Church > > >>>>>>> RFC Production Center > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Aug 26, 2025, at 7:53 AM, Zoltan Szabadka < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 9:59 PM Jyrki Alakuijala < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> I think we should change: "This document updates RFC 7932." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It should be: "This document specifies an extension to the > method defined in RFC 7932."" > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> As far as I see, there are two almost independent > considerations here: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 1) Whether the document should have the "Updates: 7932" field. > This header was added during the AD review with the following reasoning > (copied here for reference): > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> "I think this document should "Update" RFC 7932. The "Update" > header tag is flexible in its usage, and doesn't necessarily mean that the > updating document is a required feature of the original document > ("extension" is a valid use of "Update"), instead it creates a forward link > from the original doc to the update. The question in this case if having > such a link from 7932 would be useful for readers of 7932. I tend to say > yes." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I still agree with this, so I think we should keep the Updates > header field. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 2) How should this header field be reflected in the abstract. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The relevant GENART review comment: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> "The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7932, > but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> In this regard I agree with Jyrki that the sentence "This > document specifies an extension to the method defined in RFC 7932." > expresses more accurately the relationship between the two RFCs. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> RFC9841 is its own thing that is strongly based on RFC7932, but > does not change RFC7932. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> RFC7932 is unchanged in its previous use, including the "br" > content encoding. Nothing is obsoleted, updated or changed. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> The RFC9841 defines a new different method "sbr" to the same > ecosystem, but with different compromises. Most websites will likely keep > using "br" (RFC7932), as "sbr" gives some speed gains, but requires a > higher level of competence from the webmasters. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> What are your thoughts about this? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 6:32 PM Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> 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 < > [email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:33 PM Madison Church < > [email protected]> 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> Lode Vandevenne > > >> Google + Switzerland GmbH, Identifikationsnummer: > CH-020.4.028.116-1 > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
