Re: HPACK WGLC feedback

That seems reasonable, Herve; I also think this is editorial.

Cheers,

On 1 Sep 2014, at 10:49 am, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote:

> It's the remnant of an evolution process that didn't get far enough. I'm going to change this if it's not too much trouble.
> 
> Hervé.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:w@1wt.eu]
>> Sent: dimanche 31 août 2014 17:41
>> To: Julian Reschke
>> Cc: HTTP Working Group
>> Subject: Re: HPACK WGLC feedback
>> 
>> Hi Julian
>> 
>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 03:46:14PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>> 
>>> so I just read this (the current version checked into git) end-to-end,
>>> and don't have any substantial comments. I might if I actually tried to
>>> implement it, though.
>>> 
>>> The one *editorial* comment I have is that having the two tables called
>>> "static table" and "header table" is very confusing. Is there a reason
>>> why it's not simply "static table" and "dynamic table"?
>> 
>> I agree with you, and it's how I noted it on paper while thinking about
>> implementation, because I had the same concerns.
>> 
>> Willy
>> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 06:32:17 UTC