W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: Call for Consensus: #578

From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:20:21 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D06D4131.3B92E%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
On 10/22/14, 1:03 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:


>Please state which you support (multiples are fine), as well as what you
>can't live with (and, briefly, why).

In order of preference (and reasoning):

Option 3: Puts static and dynamic on equal footing, removes the desire to
trim the static table, allows for pre-generated headers from the static
table, and allows the static table to grow in the future.  Ideally we
would reorder the static table, add values to the static table, and
perhaps swap the prefixes as suggested, if we agree to make this change.

Option 1: Allows for pre-generated headers from the static table, gives a
preference to static table entries (e.g., standard headers).

Option 2: Is a -1 for me.  This switches the efficiency to non-standard
headers, removes the ability for pre-generated headers from the static
table, but does allow the static table to grow and removes the desire to
trim the static table.

- Robby
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 15:21:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:40 UTC