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 > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
