Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- While I still disagree with the technical choice, I'm satisfied that the working group considered the options and has made a conscious decision here. I'll consider the DISCUSS addressed. (Preserving below.) The other elements have been addressed in the most recent draft. Thanks to Julian Reschke for the HTTP Directorate review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-08-httpdir-lc-reschke-2026-02-27/). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2, paragraph 7 > object in large files can be parsed independently. Files MAY be > compressed with GZIP [RFC1952]. What is the motivation for specifying GZIP only? You're using HTTP -- why not do normal content negotiation and allow clients and servers to select any mutually acceptable content encoding? (See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-accept-encoding) _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
