RE: Re-work of op-code patterns

I ran the number, but they were maybe hidden at the end of my proposal.
Here there are again, with more details:

Mnot test set:
  Req Res All
Current  24,62% 37,53% 29,62%
Proposal 24,66% 37,53% 29,64%

Hruellan test set:
  Req Res All
Current  17,89% 26,34% 21,65%
Proposal 17,96% 26,34% 21,68%

So there is a compaction loss, but it's mostly negligible.

It is also probably easier for handling padding inside HPACK.

Hervé.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: lundi 27 janvier 2014 18:39
> To: Jeff Pinner
> Cc: RUELLAN Herve; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Re-work of op-code patterns
> 
> On 27 January 2014 08:43, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> > With the proposed change what would 0b1000000 signal?
> 
> An indexed header field, the first one.
> 
> > If we are going to add a new opcode, I'd prefer to see the literal header
> > encodes both start with the same symbol:
> 
> The problem with your proposal is that it takes a rare condition
> (Encoding context change) and assigns a shorter opcode to it.  The
> cost is that header indexes greater than 30 will take an extra byte.
> If you really want this, run the numbers and let us know what it
> costs.

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 17:05:55 UTC