[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Bug in the bindings doc; wrong RFC
> If DEFLATE/RFC1951 is what was intended, and what is still desired, then > the specification is correct, although it is missing a bibliography > entry for the actual RFC. Yes, this is definitely what was intended, and it does reference 1951 in that section, but the bib. entry is missing. > I will point out, however, that everyone seems to have implemented it > wrong. Let me emphasize that: everyone. Certainly, some of this is the > fault of errors in the Java documentation. But it also has to make you > wonder if the spec itself doesn't, somehow, need improvement. Well, it could say "don't be fooled by the incorrect Sun documentation", I guess. ;-) Did anybody get it wrong that *wasn't* using Java or was led to assume that the output of the Java classes was to be trusted? I did think we needed samples to validate with because I didn't trust any particular library without independent verification that it was producing nothing but the DEFLATE stream. I'd be curious if the samples in the spec are correct. I produced them by hand by attempting to strip the gzip header off the output of gzip itself. I asked a few times for people to give me samples I could verify with so that we'd flag any problems... -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]