- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:16:26 +0200
- To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 09:09:55AM +0000, RUELLAN Herve wrote: > > -----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. OK that way it's clear. Initially I didn't want to do it that way (when I tried to adjust the encoding to save more bits) because I believed we needed to have all the static headers in 1 byte. But assuming the most common ones have the lowest indexes, it makes sense to do so, as we can encode the first 32 of them with 1 byte, same for the dynamic ones. Thus +1 for me. Willy
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2014 09:17:21 UTC