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

Re: SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:25:52 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPyZ6=+Yee30CnUuu7yCLAx5NEP4c5cOO=1X9iVK829S+ruN1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
How about put static table before dynamic table. Then encoder does not need
to track the size of the entry beyond its boundary. It still needs to take
care reference set toggle though.

Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa

2013/10/19 1:53 "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>:
>
> On 18 October 2013 09:23, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How about an implementation considerations section where we talk about
how
> > implementations might leverage the spec in various scenarios?
>
> I think that it's more than that.  An encoder doesn't have to track
> the entire table, but they do need to track sizes if they ever intend
> to use the static table.  As long as they don't intend to reuse the
> entries, then they don't have to keep the actual values.  An encoder
> doesn't need to track entry sizes unless they want to use the static
> table.
>
> I think that's the only consequences to this for an encoder.  The cost
> to the encoder is pitifully small when compared to the work and
> commitment required by a decoder.  Just make a note of this and move
> on.
Received on Saturday, 19 October 2013 02:26:19 UTC

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