Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Improve language on blocking entries. (#3131)

[Bence Béky <[e-mail]>]

> This removes the text that you have to track references. Of course you _do_ to accomplish what this section describes. Do we want a normative term somewhere?
> 

The following sentence from the old text that I propose to remove:

> An encoder MUST ensure that a header block which references a dynamic table	
> entry is not processed by the decoder after the referenced entry has been	
> evicted.

is redundant with the following sentence that I am leaving untouched:

> An encoder MUST NOT insert an entry into the dynamic table (or duplicate an
> existing entry) if doing so would evict a blocking entry.

(Redundant in the sense that the second sentence implies the first.)  I do not believe that removing the first sentence while leaving the second one relaxes normative requirements on the encoder, nor do I believe that keeping both sentences makes the draft clearer.

-- 
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/3131#issuecomment-547389906