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

Re: I ran across this while working on the spec.

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:57:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW-YjZC4yYYhdKYrDrrsNgLu1KzU98b1eAjz8gSLV7jsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 18 October 2013 09:12, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote:
> #2 is nice to have if you want to be able to just cleanup the compression context without reducing the max size to 0: the message is much more explicit about the intent.

One of the arguments against the HEADERS frame flag you proposed was
that this increases the ways that header compression receives inputs.
Status quo is nice because only header blocks get passed to the
compressor.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 16:58:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC