- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:47:21 +0000
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, 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>
-------- In message <CAH_y2NFprbTLt5tOrC21hZaHJfvf59B5bgK5-3nmbf8vfKpGOA@mail.gmail.com> , Greg Wilkins writes: >However, note that I think it needs to be considered together with a review >of the static table itself. With your pattern we get : > > - 62 static 1 byte indexed fields - which are only useful if we have > values for most of the first 62 entries in the static table - so we need to > add as many valus as possible ... in due time. I agree that the current table should be reviewed now, but we should not fill it up with junk, just to fill it up. It makes a lot of sense to leave the remaning slots available for future extensions. Maybe we should already add a SETTING to tell how long a table an implementation supports, to make such additions quick and painless. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 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.
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2014 06:47:48 UTC