- From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:09:55 +0000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:w@1wt.eu] > Sent: mercredi 15 octobre 2014 22:16 > To: Amos Jeffries > Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 06:20:00PM +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 15/10/2014 6:11 p.m., Adrian Cole wrote: > > >> If an argument can be made that 2 byte encodings are still too > > >> large for dynamic headers, then instead of flipping back let's > > >> investigate how the 1 byte slots can be shared between static and > > >> dynamic. > > > FWIW, I'm happy to implement an alternate approach, if one comes > > > out. Thanks, Greg. > > > > > > > Alternative approach has already been proposed. That the first bit of > > the index is used as a flag to indicate static or dynamic table for > > the remaning 7+ bits. > > > > That not only puts both on an even bias, but expands the range of > > values getting 1-byte encodings in either table and removes the need > > for the math complexity people are disliking. > > > > 1 stone, 3 birds. > > I totally agree with this except that I don't see where you take that > spare bit from, that's what initially led me to rethink the encoding. > So if you konw where to find one bit, +1 for me obviously! Everywhere where there's an index into the static/dynamic table, reduce the index size by 1 bit and use this bit as a flag to find which table is used. Hervé. > > (The paranoid in me can only think that it is being repeatedly > > rejected despite evidence of its usefulness because of who proposed it.) > > No need to be paranoid here, the most common reason is that it's hard to > explain our thoughts and most of the time it ends up with each other > understanding something different and either useless or scary. Noone's > to blame for this, human languages are not appropriate for discussing > bits and bytes. > > Thanks, > Willy >
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2014 09:11:23 UTC