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

Re: hpack static table question?

From: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:44:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CANV5PPUW5XnpFEU15VUnfrWF+749YWUXCCDMuyaNEXt8k=WJSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
I was wondering this about a month back, when I was helping debug an issue
centered around this case (a copy of a static entry being evicted). So I
looked back in the list archives, and saw that basically, some people
wanted setting the table size to 0 to mean that literally no state was
kept, not even references to the static table. (I'm on my phone, so no link
to the thread, sorry.)

Personally, I think it's silly, too (it means that periodically I have to
send an indexed representation that I wouldn't have to if I could put
static :method GET headers in the reference set). But it's what we have,
and I have to re-send :method if some resources are POST anyway, so it's
not a big loss. This is why I didn't bring it up a month ago.

Personally, while I'm not a fan of this restriction, I'd rather keep the
spec as is so we can get to last call sooner.
On Jun 2, 2014 9:25 AM, "Cory Benfield" <cory@lukasa.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2 June 2014 17:05, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't understand.  What is the problem here exactly?
> Let's get everyone on the same page.
> Greg is concerned that he has to copy a header out of the static table
> into the header table in order to add it to the reference set. He has
> to do this because the spec states that references may only be to
> headers in the header set without being clear of _why_ that's the
> case.
> Tatsuhiro has provided the most compelling reason so far, which is
> that it enables the clearing of the reference set by the slightly
> obscure means of setting the header table size to zero via HTTP/2
> SETTINGS. I don't think anyone actually wants to do this.
> I think the real question here is: why can't we have references to the
> static table? What is the architectural reason that ruled it out?
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 16:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC