Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Explicitly talk about Largest Reference zero. (#2251)

[Bence Béky <[e-mail]>]

bencebeky commented on this pull request.



> @@ -874,8 +876,7 @@ Largest Reference and Base Index to the same value.  In such case, both the sign
 bit and the Delta Base Index will be set to zero.
 
 A header block that does not reference the dynamic table can use any value for
-Base Index; setting both Largest Reference and Base Index to zero is the most

I think the word "can" is misleading in your sentence "You can encode a Largest Reference of zero", because whether the encoded Largest Reference is zero is not a choice.  I have the same problem with the current wording of the spec, that's exactly why I'm proposing this change.

In my mind, 0 for the abstract notion means that there are no references.  (Is this what you mean by "sentinel value"?)  The spec already calls this out at least in one place, and I'm proposing more clarifications at issue #2251.

In my mind, 0 on the wire does not mean anything.  It has to be decoded.  It just happens so that 0 is mapped to 0, and it just happens to that the current wording of the spec is that 0 is not transcribed, but what that actually means is that 0 is transcribed to 0.

In any case, we having this discussion here is an indication that the text needs some kind of improvement.

-- 
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/2251#discussion_r243835296