- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:28:13 -0700
- To: Pavel Rappo <pavel.rappo@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9 June 2015 at 06:14, Pavel Rappo <pavel.rappo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Can a "Dynamic Table Size Update" be unsolicited or its only purpose is to
> acknowledge the fact that encoder has understood the request sent by decoder and
> agreed to use a new maximum upper bound for the dynamic table size?
This is the encoder's choice. The value can be set to whatever value
they like, whenever they like, as long as it is <= the maximum set by
the decoder.
> Am I right saying that _semantically_ it would be equivalent to this schematic
> behaviour (depicted by pseudo-code):
Yes, you have it (almost entirely) correct.
> Encoder.setMaxSize( size ) {
> if size < minSizeSoFar
> minSizeSoFar = size
> lastSize = size;
> }
>
> Encoder.encodeAndSendAsHeaderBlock( headers ) {
+ if minSizeSoFar < currentSize {
> sendMaximumSizeUpdate( minSizeSoFar );
}
minSizeSoFar = Infinity
> if minSizeSoFar != lastSize
> sendMaximumSizeUpdate( lastSize );
> for each (Header h in headers) {
> ...
> }
> ...
> }
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2015 17:28:40 UTC