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

Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:29:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPyZ6=KVHr0inA=8WveX84d_xfwSqbwf5egZKS29-eCMnyvctQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 22 July 2014 05:45, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
> wrote:
> > That's exactly what I proposed (I checked the spec, seems to be allowed
> > to send two settings in one frame).
>
>
> Yes, that is specifically allowed (we want to permit stateless
> processing of settings).
>
> I'll note that the change needs to be acknowledged in a header block
> with an encoding context update.
>
>
​If 2 SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE is in SETTINGS, say 0 and N in this order,
do we have to encode 2 encoding context update for both 0 and N or for just
N?​

​Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa​
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 16:30:18 UTC

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