RE: Header Compression Clarifications

+1

Hervé.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Peon [mailto:grmocg@gmail.com]
> Sent: mardi 2 juillet 2013 23:55
> To: James M Snell
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Header Compression Clarifications
> 
> 1: There is currently no prohibition against this.
> 
> 2: seems reasonable
> 3: I think we should change that so we only deal with lowercased keys
> consistently.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	Need just a few simple clarifications...
> 
> 	1. Can the Header Table include duplicates? For instance, if the
> 	sender sends a Literal With Incremental or Substitution Indexing for a
> 	name+value that already exists in the Header Table. The sender
> 	shouldn't do this, but a buggy/malicious sender might. It's obviously
> 	bad behavior but it's not yet clear if it's an error.
> 
> 	2. If the sender sends a Literal with Substitution Indexing
> 	referencing an Index position that is not yet currently filled. This
> 	ought to be an error but it's not specified. For instance, let's
> 	suppose the Header Table has five entries (Index #0...4) currently
> and
> 	the sender sends a Substitution instruction referencing index #5.
> 	Obviously the sender is doing something wrong.
> 
> 	3. The Header Compression draft currently requires that header
> name
> 	matching in the header table be case *insensitive*. However, the
> 	current HTTP/2 implementation draft only says that HTTP Header
> Field
> 	names are lower cased. There is no indication in the main HTTP/2
> 	specification indicating that ALL header names (even hypothetical
> 	non-HTTP headers that may come around later) must be lowercased.
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 13:02:41 UTC