W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: HEADERS and flow control

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 19:53:26 +0100
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <etPan.537f9926.19495cff.101@corymbp.local>
On 23 May 2014 at 01:32:12, Matthew Kerwin (matthew@kerwin.net.au(mailto:matthew@kerwin.net.au)) wrote:
> ​It's also the single most complex part of the spec​ to implement. My side-project implementation has hiccupped and stalled every time it's bumped into continuation frames and hpack. I've currently stopped all work on it until I have time to go through and read in much more detail the hpack draft, and some related archived conversations on the list, and Canonical prefix encodings and Huffman coding, etc.  
> If I could negotiate not using HPACK I could probably have the rest of my implementation up to some sort of interop testing by now.  

Could not agree more.

I don't want to harp on this too much because I've mentioned it before, but
HPACK is really complex and so, so easy to get wrong. The only way to find out
whether you've got it right is with really rigorous integration testing and
even that's not really sufficient to catch every edge case.

Implementing HPACK is so much harder than implementing HTTP/2. A naive HTTP/2
implementation is simply not that difficult. However, there's no such thing as
a naive HPACK implementation, only wrong implementations.
Received on Friday, 23 May 2014 18:53:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC