Re: Straw Poll: Restore Header Table and Static Table Indices

[Shigeki Ohtsu <[e-mail]>]

My preference is not to switch back it for implement simplicity, but I 
agree that  it does not have
a  good compression effciency  for a dynamic header not to be encoded in 
one byte intexed header rep.

I think the current number of static header entries is enough too large 
compared to the frequencies
  to be referred.  If we reduce a number of static header entries, it 
would be have a more chance for
a dynamic header to be referred in the index less than 63.

On 2014/10/07 4:23, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Thanks, Jeff.
>
> I see people have already started to respond to this.
>
> Everyone else, please do the same — if you think this needs more discussion, please do so, but I think we’re at a point where people can just state their preferences.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> On 7 Oct 2014, at 2:02 am, Jeff Pinner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> As request by Mark, I propose that the current HPACK draft be changed
>> such that Sec. 2.3.3 Index Address Space reads,
>>
>> "Indices between 1 and the length of the dynamic table (inclusive)
>> refer to elements in the dynamic table.
>>
>> Indices strictly greater than the length of the dynamic table refer to
>> elements in the static table. The length of the dynamic table is
>> subtracted from the index into the static table."
>>
>> with the associated diagram updated. This reverts the change made
>> between draft -08 and -09 in the change log, "Exchanged header and
>> static table positions."
>>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>