W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:22:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_jSaj012aca6fauuAj+7o6NGKL7bbAW6VgxJ=5gZwKoYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> I did some quick experiments before putting the change in the spec.

Experiments using what corpus? Again with a corpus that has more
custom headers than standard ones (as almost every request sent
between our backend servers does), the change almost doubled the
compressed size.


> My conclusion was, and still is, that the compaction impact was slightly negative, but very small and was more than balanced by the other benefits of putting the dynamic table after the static table.

What are these other benefits? I certainly don't believe there are any
-- having to know the size of the dynamic table to compute a static
index offset?

Why was the change put in, without a discussion on the list, when it
admittedly had a negative impact on compression in your testing?
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 15:22:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC