Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns

[Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>]

This was the first thing I experimented. :)
It either requires two different state size settings, or it makes state
size management .... interesting....
Having a single table made much more sense and was less complicated,
especially for proxies.

-=R


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jeff Pinner <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Mike Belshe <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I'm also in favor of removing the compressor completely.
>>
>
> So the compressor buys us the ability to share headers between streams and
> possibly to reduce the size of the headers via some sort of encoding
> (whether it's typed encodings, or huffman compressed strings, or varint
> lengths, etc). So a dumb proposal:
>
> A HEADERS frame consists of encoded name values pairs, let's say varint
> length followed by UTF-8 bytes of the string (we can argue over compressed
> strings, types, etc. later, but basically no indexing into shared state).
>
> Sending a HEADERS frame on Stream-ID 0 creates a set of headers that gets
> saved and added to the HEADERS frame that opens any streams after it is
> sent. Sending a new HEADERS frame on Stream-ID 0 overwrites the previous
> frame.
>
> This allows us to share Cookies, User-Agent, Host, etc. between requests,
> but wouldn't allow for any response header sharing. It would allow us to
> share headers for pushed responses since those are streams opened by the
> server.
>
>
>