Re: Static Table Entries

• From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
• Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 14:50:20 -0700
• To: "Kulkarni, Saurabh" <sakulkar@akamai.com>
• Cc: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CABkgnnUo7dsPGwEERCZZPX2Fhb3tf8FbUnwCvEfBRezWPtxmmQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 August 2014 14:27, Kulkarni, Saurabh <sakulkar@akamai.com> wrote:
> Since now we have switched the static table to the lower indices, we
> should try to see if we can populate the entries if possible with their
> most-popular values. For e.g. Œcontent-encoding: gzip¹ is better than
> Œcontent-encoding: <empty>¹. Having an empty value made sense when we
> always added entries to header table before, but now it just seems like we
> are missing an opportunity to further get some compression thru populating
> all the headers.

I just went through the list; there really isn't much that we can add
that is unambiguously good like that.

Content-Encoding seems like the only good example.  Cache-Control: no-cache too.

But see previous comments regarding changes.

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 21:50:47 UTC