- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:46:46 -0700
- To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
- Cc: Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>, Hervé Ruellan <ruellan.crf@gmail.com>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25 October 2013 10:37, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> wrote: > This greatly simplifies the things. It does not simplify things. Primarily because settings become negotiable, which is a significant complication. Is this the only setting that is negotiable? How do we signal that settings are negotiable? At worst, the cost to an encoder of an increased header table size setting is an inability to use the static header table. That means, worst case, the encoder has to send a few more literals on the wire. This is not significantly worse than sending SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE=0. In some respects, it's actually better.
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 17:47:13 UTC