Re: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices

--------
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