Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Largest Reference isn't the right concept (#2110)

csillagasz <> Wed, 26 December 2018 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00ACE13126E for <>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:39:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.065
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PEnpUJBV9Yi3 for <>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C692113126D for <>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:39:37 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1545853177; bh=K4vcl7N3C0Ve7+oZx3KMraZ7uPZ5/4lRSC4UiPMeZyo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=FDU3fu4kpx6l+TzFL/g+HTfWbkJ9HWhAAQ/C36DhKVY2OSgddoObhqfVyjc3Y2BKR mL90pFdMGeUXGl+RdSeXWmCgcu8g+RLubIiIkfVTghxGGmK3vG8nJtKB/cszPr2i+4 R3aP/SXA8P7gOMv6GuruySdDcW+0gsMRhWTg8cYU=
From: csillagasz <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2110/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Largest Reference isn't the right concept (#2110)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c23d8f9a50bc_4bf93fa1fead45b46485ed"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: csillagasz
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 19:39:41 -0000

> @bencebeky writes:
> > I enthusiastically support [...] changing absolute indexing to zero-based.
> This had been discussed before. The consensus was to leave it one-based.

My impression is that this consensus was driven by the artifical constraint of Largest Reference having to be able to match the absolute index while also having a dedicated value (of zero) for no dynamic reference.  Martin's proposed change from Largest Reference to Required Insert Count removes this rather contrived constraint and allows the more natural indexing scheme of zero based indexing that matches static table indexing, the majority of developers' mental model, and the majority of implementations' innards.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: