- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:12:58 -0700
- To: Pavel Rappo <pavel.rappo@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9 June 2015 at 13:57, Pavel Rappo <pavel.rappo@gmail.com> wrote: > To me it seems like it _only_ applies to solicited updates. That is my understanding too (though it might not be well-tested; you can check with the test suites here: https://github.com/http2jp/hpack-test-case) > Just curious, what was the rationale behind binding size updates to a specific > location in a header block (for the solicited case)? The rule here is that the change had to be immediate. That is, once you acknowledge the setting at the HTTP/2 framing layer, you can't delay enacting the change within HPACK. > 2. As I understand a header block cannot consist of only size updates because > "size update" is not a header field representation. So size updates (if any) has > to go with some header fields. Am I right? Well, technically a header block can be empty, but only for trailers. All the other blocks have mandatory header fields. It's an odd case, and (again) might not be well-tested, so I wouldn't do it. But it isn't technically disallowed.
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2015 22:13:26 UTC