- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:17:19 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Poul-Henning, On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 07:48:50PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > +1 > > I like this, it's nice and orthogonal. Thank you. > >- Indices between 1 and the length of the static table (inclusive) > >- refer to elements in the static table (see Section 2.3.1). > >- > >+ Both the static and the dynamic tables are indexed starting at 1. > > Indices strictly greater than the length of the static table refer to > > elements in the dynamic table (see Section 2.3.2). The length of the > > static table is subtracted to find the index into the dynamic table. > > These three lines left in conflict somewhat with the four lines you > add below. Ah yes indeed, good catch. I tried to be careful and the spec is already quite clean but I missed these ones. > >- Indices strictly greater than the sum of the lengths of both tables > >- MUST be treated as a decoding error. > >+ Static table indices strictly greater than the length of the table as > >+ defined in Appendix A MUST be treated as a decoding error. Dynamic table > >+ indices strictly greater than the length of the dynamic table MUST be > >+ treated as a decoding error. Best regards, Willy
Received on Monday, 20 October 2014 20:18:55 UTC