- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:53:59 -0700
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
On 18 October 2013 09:23, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > How about an implementation considerations section where we talk about how > implementations might leverage the spec in various scenarios? I think that it's more than that. An encoder doesn't have to track the entire table, but they do need to track sizes if they ever intend to use the static table. As long as they don't intend to reuse the entries, then they don't have to keep the actual values. An encoder doesn't need to track entry sizes unless they want to use the static table. I think that's the only consequences to this for an encoder. The cost to the encoder is pitifully small when compared to the work and commitment required by a decoder. Just make a note of this and move on.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 16:54:26 UTC