- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:25:05 +0200
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Roberto, On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:01:19AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote: > While I prefer the indexing scheme of the previous draft, this proposal > would be better than what is currently drafted. Thanks. Do you know how the following representations are ordered in terms of frequency/probability ? - Indexed Header Field Representation - Literal Header Field with Incremental Indexing - Literal Header Field without Indexing - Literal Header Field never Indexed I would guess they should appear in the order above, though that's not obvious to me. And I'm still sad at the idea of leaving many encoding values unused (eg: static header values above 16). Thus, we'll typically have 48 possible values out of 256 for the first byte that will never be emitted just for the indexed headers alone, that's a 20% waste, and I really think we can do better without making anything more complex. I just need to ensure I don't propose something stupid. Thanks, Willy
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2014 09:26:46 UTC