W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Richard Barnes' Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:11:22 +0100
Message-ID: <54C13D4A.8040304@crf.canon.fr>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: <mnot@mnot.net>, <draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression.all@tools.ietf.org>, <httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Richard,

Please see my comment below.

On 01/22/2015 07:38 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 2.3.3: "Indices between 1 and the length of the static table..."
> The use of 1-based indexing here seems likely to lead to
> incompatibilities.

This is because we use index 0 for special cases. We had for a long time 
a 0-based indexing, and whenever we encoded the index, we first added 1 
to it. So we made things simpler by using a 1-based indexing.

>
> Section 3:
> Currently, you never say explicitly that a header block is the
> concatenation of encoded header fields, where each field is encoded
> according to Section 6.  This would be a good spot to do that.

This is suggested in the definition of a header block in 1.3, but it 
would obviously be better to state it clearly.

> Section 5.1: "... always finishes at the end of an octet"
> It was not immediately clear to me that the "?" bits indicated that an
> integer need not *begin* at an octet boundary.  It would be helpful to
> note that here.

OK.

Hervé.
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 18:13:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC