[quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's QPACK Comment 5 (#4795)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Thu, 21 January 2021 14:21 UTC

Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:21:00 -0800
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6LVZIDUZY5Q5ZE4L56CVXMZEVBNHHC6J64B4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4795@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's QPACK Comment 5 (#4795)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_60098dcca15d4_571a041545a8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/vffUUuxp5alfVddbV9kbo174t3g>

@kaduk said

> Appendix B
>
> I worked through the examples.  The presentation format is quite nice, and
> I appreciate all the detailed breakdowns!
>
> However, we show the dynamic table as being 1-indexed, but I'm pretty
> sure the prose says it should be 0-indexed.  We do it consistently, at
> least, and toss some extra '1's into the math to make the numbers work
> out, but since the static table is by definition 0-indexed, it's a bit
> weird to show the dynamic table as 1-indexed.
>
> Additionally, I think that B.5 is an exception to the "we do it
> consistently" -- while the 81... dynamic insert with relative index 1
> does refer to the indicated custom-key field, that would be absolute
> index 3 in the 1-indexed presentation we give (though it would be
> absolute index 2 if 0-indexed, if I'm getting this right).

-- 
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/issues/4795

[quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's QPACK Comment 5 … Lucas Pardue
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's QPACK Commen… afrind
Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ben Kaduk's QPACK Commen… afrind