The huffman design (using canonical huffman) was chosen such that replacing the table would be cheap (as transmitted on the wire), if, in the far-future it is needed to change tables, it will be cheap/possible. That is something to play around with, but not something that I'd guess would fit in the protocol today, as it has uncertain security ramifications. -=R On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30 May 2014 08:05, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote: > > On this topic, has there been any consideration given to a potential > need to alter the huffman code table after release? Perhaps after real > world deployment someone determines that slightly different weighting would > lead to improved packet size. My apologies if this was discussed in a past > thread. > > Yes, we put this in the "significant change" category. That means > "h3", most likely. If we bring back extensions, then there will be > other ways to move to an arithmetic coder or typed fields or something > crazy. > >
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 18:04:36 UTC