W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Header Compression Implementation Feedback

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 07:45:03 -0400
Message-id: <C381B945-1AAE-43E9-A8D0-1323984004F4@apple.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
If you are suggesting that each endpoint should maintain a single encoding and a single decoding table per stream, I'm +1 on that.

Sent from my iPad

On 2013-07-09, at 1:13 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 9/07/2013 12:01 p.m., James M Snell wrote:
>> Another minor item as I've been going through the implementation:
>> 4. Right now, the Header Compression scheme assumes two separate
>> pre-filled header tables... one for Request headers, the other for
>> response headers. The challenge with this is that it does not account
>> for the use of Request Headers within PUSH_PROMISE frames. This is
>> minor right now, but it means that PUSH_PROMISE frames will not have
>> optimum compression because the request headers will need to be added
>> as Literal representations with Indexing. It would be better if we
>> just had ONE prefilled table (it would make implementation generally
>> easier as well)
> +1.
> Amos
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 11:45:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC