- From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:20:21 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 10/22/14, 1:03 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >Please state which you support (multiples are fine), as well as what you >can't live with (and, briefly, why). In order of preference (and reasoning): Option 3: Puts static and dynamic on equal footing, removes the desire to trim the static table, allows for pre-generated headers from the static table, and allows the static table to grow in the future. Ideally we would reorder the static table, add values to the static table, and perhaps swap the prefixes as suggested, if we agree to make this change. Option 1: Allows for pre-generated headers from the static table, gives a preference to static table entries (e.g., standard headers). Option 2: Is a -1 for me. This switches the efficiency to non-standard headers, removes the ability for pre-generated headers from the static table, but does allow the static table to grow and removes the desire to trim the static table. - Robby
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 15:21:03 UTC