Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>
> 1) 1xxxxxxx: "Indexed Header Field Representation"
>
> 2) 01xxxxxx: "Literal Header Field With Incremental Indexing"
>
> 3) 001xxxxx: "Maximum Header Table Size Change"
>
> 4) 0001xxxx: "Literal Header Field Never Indexed"
>
> 5) 0000xxxx: "Literal Header Field Without Indexing"
>
>
>
> Do we really expect tablesize (3) to be more common than
> literal_without_indexing (5)?
>

Excellent point. Unless I'm missing something here I believe swapping the
third and fifth patterns would be the right thing to do.

I don’t have a strong opinion to change the masks, but I am curious if the
> bit pattern selection was deliberate.
>
>
I don't know. It doesn't look like it was deliberate. I'd say it's a
micro-optimization worth doing.

Regards,
Alvaro