Re: QCRAM Review Request: PR #1141

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

I was a little surprised to see the savings here, modest though they are.
Overall, this is overwhelmingly in the right direction.

We might quibble on some of the details, but I would prefer to see this
larger change made and then iterate where the details are less good (for
instance, we might revisit the notion of octet alignment in other ways, or
go back to strings starting on octet boundaries).

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Mike Bishop <[e-mail]> wrote:

> https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1141
>
>
>
> One suggestion from Martin’s implementation feedback that has been
> mentioned before is reworking the QCRAM instruction space.  The QCRAM draft
> uses the HPACK instructions, except that it cannibalizes table size changes
> for the Duplicate instruction.  That leads to some inefficiency with the
> separate streams, since you have to validate that instructions aren’t used
> on the wrong stream and some of the opcode space is wasted on each stream.
>
>
>
> This PR observes that each stream has a fully disjoint set of commands
> from the other:
>
>    - Table updates
>       - Insert with Name Reference from Static Table
>       - Insert with Name Reference from Dynamic Table
>       - Insert without Name Reference
>       - Duplicate
>       - Change table size
>    - Header blocks
>       - Indexed entry from Static
>       - Indexed entry from Dynamic
>       - Literal with Name Reference from Static Table
>       - Literal with Name Reference from Static Table, Never Indexed
>       - Literal with Name Reference from Dynamic Table
>       - Literal with Name Reference from Dynamic Table, Never Indexed
>       - Literal without Name Reference
>       - Literal without Name Reference, Never Indexed
>
>
>
> The PR takes advantage of the disjoint space to rework the opcodes in
> hopes of saving bytes on common instructions.  It does this in two ways:
>
>    - Uses a bit in the opcode to differentiate static versus dynamic
>    tables, instead of concatenating them
>       - Gives us the future option to make the static table longer
>       without hurting the dynamic table performance
>    - Uses a bit in the opcode to identify string literals, instead of
>    using a sentinel value of zero
>       - Requires modifying the HPACK string definition to not require
>       byte alignment at the beginning
>       - Gives us the future option to make the tables zero-based instead
>       of one-based
>       - Makes indexing easier to explain in a future PR
>
>
>
> Here’s the impact:
>
>
>
> *Operation*
>
> *HPACK*
>
> *QCRAM*
>
> *PR#1141*
>
> *Impact*
>
> *Table updates*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Insert with Name Reference from Static Table*
>
> “01” + index < 62
>
> “01” + index < 62
>
> “11” + index
>
> Same
>
> *Insert with Name Reference from Dynamic Table*
>
> “01” + index >= 62
>
> (one byte for first 2 entries, then 2 bytes)
>
> “01” + index >= 62
>
> (one byte for first 2 entries, then 2 bytes)
>
> “10” + index
>
> (one byte for first 64 entries)
>
> One byte saved for 62 of 64 most recent entries
>
> *Insert without Name Reference*
>
> “01000000”
>
> “01000000”
>
> “01”
>
>
>
> One byte saved for header names < 32 octets
>
> *Duplicate*
>
> Not supported
>
> “001” + index >= 62
>
> “000” + index
>
> Moot; you’re unlikely to duplicate recent entries
>
> *Change table size*
>
> “001”
>
> Not supported
>
> “001”
>
> Same
>
> *Header blocks*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Indexed entry from Static*
>
> “1” + index < 62
>
> “1” + index < 62
>
> “11” + index
>
> Same
>
> *Indexed entry from Dynamic*
>
> “1” + index >= 62
>
> “1” + index >= 62
>
> “10” + index
>
> One byte longer for indices 62-63
>
> *Literal with Name Reference from Static Table*
>
> “0000” + index < 62
>
> (two bytes for index > 15)
>
> “0000” + index < 62
>
> (two bytes for index > 15)
>
> “0001” + index
>
> Same
>
> *Literal with Name Reference from Static Table, Never Indexed*
>
> “0001” + index < 62
>
> (two bytes for index > 15)
>
> “0001” + index < 62
>
> (two bytes for index > 15)
>
> “0011” + index
>
> Same
>
> *Literal with Name Reference from Dynamic Table*
>
> “0000” + index >= 62
>
> (always 2+ bytes)
>
> “0000” + index >= 62
>
> (always 2+ bytes)
>
> “0000” + index
>
> One byte saved for first 15 entries
>
> *Literal with Name Reference from Dynamic Table, Never Indexed*
>
> “0001” + index > 62
>
> (always 2+ bytes)
>
> “0001” + index > 62
>
> (always 2+ bytes)
>
> “0010” + index
>
> One byte saved for first 15 entries
>
> *Literal without Name Reference*
>
> “00000000”
>
> “00000000”
>
> “010”
>
> One byte saved for header names < 16 octets
>
> *Literal without Name Reference, Never Indexed*
>
> “00010000”
>
> “00010000”
>
> “011”
>
> One byte saved for header names < 16 octets
>
>
>
> There’s been some churn on the PR today as Martin and I worked some of
> this out, so please give it a read (or another read) now and provide
> feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>