- From: Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 00:13:04 +0000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 00:13:35 UTC
1) 1xxxxxxx: "Indexed Header Field Representation" 2) 01xxxxxx: "Literal Header Field With Incremental Indexing" 3) 001xxxxx: "Maximum Header Table Size Change" 4) 0001xxxx: "Literal Header Field Never Indexed" 5) 0000xxxx: "Literal Header Field Without Indexing" Do we really expect tablesize (3) to be more common than literal_without_indexing (5)? I don't have a strong opinion to change the masks, but I am curious if the bit pattern selection was deliberate.
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 00:13:35 UTC