Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use "Insert Count" rather than "Largest Reference" (#2111)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

I'm with Alan that this seems unnecessary.  Also, the largest reference and the number of entries inserted at the end of the encoding are often the same, but need not be.

>  
 n = count of entries inserted
 d = count of entries dropped
 ~~~~~
 {: title="Example Dynamic Table Indexing - Control Stream"}
 
 Because frames from request streams can be delivered out of order with
-instructions on the encoder stream, relative indices are relative to the Base
-Index at the beginning of the header block (see {{header-prefix}}). The Base
-Index is an absolute index. When interpreting the rest of the frame, the entry
-identified by Base Index has a relative index of zero.  The relative indices of
-entries do not change while interpreting headers on a request or push stream.
+instructions on the encoder stream, relative indices are relative to the Base at
+the beginning of the header block (see {{header-prefix}}). The Base is encoded
+as a value relative to the Insert Count, so it can be expressed as the number of
+entries inserted. The dynamic table entries up to the Base can be referenced.
+The most recently inserted entry within the limit set by the Base has a relative
+index of 0.
+
+Though new entries could be added while processing a header block, the relative
+indices of entries do not change.

In theory, you could process instructions on the encoder stream in parallel with interpreting a header block.  However, more likely this refers to entries getting inserted during encoding, and this is the wrong terminology.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2111#pullrequestreview-186323745