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

[Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roberto,

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:01:19AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
> While I prefer the indexing scheme of the previous draft, this proposal
> would be better than what is currently drafted.

Thanks. Do you know how the following representations are ordered in
terms of frequency/probability ?

  - Indexed Header Field Representation
  - Literal Header Field with Incremental Indexing
  - Literal Header Field without Indexing
  - Literal Header Field never Indexed

I would guess they should appear in the order above, though that's not
obvious to me. And I'm still sad at the idea of leaving many encoding
values unused (eg: static header values above 16). Thus, we'll typically
have 48 possible values out of 256 for the first byte that will never be
emitted just for the indexed headers alone, that's a 20% waste, and I
really think we can do better without making anything more complex. I
just need to ensure I don't propose something stupid.

Thanks,
Willy