Re: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-12.txt

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 04:38:50PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2015-02-17 15:55, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> >A new version (-12) has been submitted for 
> >draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression:
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-12.txt
> >
> >
> >The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression/
> >
> >Diff from previous version:
> >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-12
> >
> >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> >submission
> >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> >IETF Secretariat.
> 
> So this now says:
> 
> >   The static table was created from the most frequent header fields
> >   used by popular web sites, with the addition of HTTP/2-specific
> >   pseudo-header fields (see Section 8.1.2.1 of [HTTP2]).  For header
> >   fields with a few frequent values, an entry was added for each of
> >   these frequent values.  For other header fields, an entry was added
> >   with an empty value.
> 
> Is that really true? How did Proxy-Auth* end up in the table then?
> 
> It also leaves the reader to wonder why we did not remove header fields 
> that can not appear in HTTP/2.
> 
> I still believe we should actually *fix* the table.

I agree. There are a few minor things that were reported several times
that should be fixed. Grouping all fields for which a default value is
provided together would simplify implementations (eg: accept-charset
vs accept-encoding), sorting them lexicographically as well. Sure it
can be hard to respect both (unless we add missing values) but for now
we help in none of these cases.

Best regards,
Willy

Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2015 20:12:53 UTC