Subject: Richard Barnes' Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Richard Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:38:02 -0800

Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.3.3: "Indices between 1 and the length of the static table..."
The use of 1-based indexing here seems likely to lead to
incompatibilities.

Section 3:
Currently, you never say explicitly that a header block is the
concatenation of encoded header fields, where each field is encoded
according to Section 6.  This would be a good spot to do that.

Section 5.1: "... always finishes at the end of an octet"
It was not immediately clear to me that the "?" bits indicated that an
integer need not *begin* at an octet boundary.  It would be helpful to
note that here.

---

From: Hervé Ruellan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:11:22 +0100

Richard,

Please see my comment below.

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression/

This is because we use index 0 for special cases. We had for a long time 
a 0-based indexing, and whenever we encoded the index, we first added 1 
to it. So we made things simpler by using a 1-based indexing.

> according to Section 6.  This would be a good spot to do that.

This is suggested in the definition of a header block in 1.3, but it 
would obviously be better to state it clearly.

> integer need not *begin* at an octet boundary.  It would be helpful to

OK.

Hervé.