Re: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices

-1 from me as well.  I can editorialize if need be but I will be rehashing what others are saying.

-stephen

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk<mailto:phk@phk.freebsd.dk>>
Date: Monday, October 6, 2014 at 11:44 AM
To: "Kulkarni, Saurabh" <sakulkar@akamai.com<mailto:sakulkar@akamai.com>>
Cc: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org<mailto:hurley@todesschaf.org>>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com<mailto:jpinner@twitter.com>>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org<mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices
Resent-From: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org<mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Monday, October 6, 2014 at 11:44 AM

--------
In message <D0582ED8.B1E9%sakulkar@akamai.com<mailto:D0582ED8.B1E9%sakulkar@akamai.com>>, "Kulkarni, Saurabh" writes:
Same here, -1 on this. Our implementation (Akamai server) is much simpler
now because of this.

Same here: -1 on this.

Having the static table first is much simpler and no credible data
has shown that putting the dynamic table first will lead to overall
improvement of compression.

And if compression is that important, we can get much more of it by
compressing timestamps algorithmically than by flipping these two
tables.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG<mailto:phk@FreeBSD.ORG>         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.