W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Header Compression Implementation Feedback

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:13:44 +1200
Message-ID: <51DB9C08.4010005@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 9/07/2013 12:01 p.m., James M Snell wrote:
> Another minor item as I've been going through the implementation:
> 4. Right now, the Header Compression scheme assumes two separate
> pre-filled header tables... one for Request headers, the other for
> response headers. The challenge with this is that it does not account
> for the use of Request Headers within PUSH_PROMISE frames. This is
> minor right now, but it means that PUSH_PROMISE frames will not have
> optimum compression because the request headers will need to be added
> as Literal representations with Indexing. It would be better if we
> just had ONE prefilled table (it would make implementation generally
> easier as well)


Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 05:14:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:15 UTC