W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:52:35 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NE=9r4DQScRvJzO3tTjwXEPFmDTRSBQZbcFhKvvghe8ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Martin,

static1 was simply switching the indexes so static indexes are 1-61,
dynamic are 62-.   It was not the proposal to create an extra static bit,
but is much the same as 7+ allows 126 one byte values, so the first 64
dynamic entries are 1 byte only.

No change to the literals. If they use a static name then they index the
static table as 1-62.  If they are an indexed literal, then a header table
entry is created and the field will have a field index >61 when next used.

cheers




On 16 July 2014 13:25, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 15 July 2014 19:13, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
>
>> h2-12 == the HPACK used by draft 12 of HTTP
>> noRefSet == no Reference Set
>> noCopy == Do not copy static fields to the header table
>> static1 == Static indexes are 1-61, dynamic are 62-...
>>
>
> Does this mean two different ways of referencing the static table?  Or are
> you adding the flag for name references in literals as well?
>



-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 03:53:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC