- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:31:46 +0300
- To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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