Re: Issue #155: Capping header compression index values

I had missed the renumbering statement in the current draft. Seeing that
now the issue goes away somewhat.
On Jul 1, 2013 3:35 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1 July 2013 14:40, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The "it" is that index values can grow without limit if the
> > compression implementation is not properly tuned.
>
> There is a limit.  The available space diminishes with each addition.
> Assuming empty string for both name and value, the default space of
> 2^12 can hold only 2^7 entries before running out of space, since each
> entry is assigned a 2^5 octet overhead.  At that point, old values
> drop off the end as new ones arrive.  That seems manageable to me.
> 2^5 or 2^6 might be better, since they fit in the prefix space, but
> what's an extra byte between friends?
>
> I don't see this as a problem at all.
>