- From: Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro@gnu.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:32:31 +0200
- To: Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 10:33:00 UTC
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > 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)? > Excellent point. Unless I'm missing something here I believe swapping the third and fifth patterns would be the right thing to do. I don’t have a strong opinion to change the masks, but I am curious if the > bit pattern selection was deliberate. > > I don't know. It doesn't look like it was deliberate. I'd say it's a micro-optimization worth doing. Regards, Alvaro
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 10:33:00 UTC