search

quicwg / base-drafts

Internet-Drafts that make up the base QUIC specification
https://quicwg.org
1.63k stars 204 forks source link

Éric Vyncke's QPACK Comment 1 #4774

Closed LPardue closed 3 years ago

LPardue commented 3 years ago

@evyncke said

I have only one generic comment, did the WG look into the Static Context Header Compression out of the LPWAN WG ? As there are similarities.

dtikhonov commented 3 years ago

I do not believe we did.

MikeBishop commented 3 years ago

No, we didn't. It's possible there would be some concepts we could have borrowed, but from a cursory examination, SCHC appears to be a framework for building a compression scheme rather than a concrete compression scheme. Given the focus on reducing individual bits and bytes out, I'm not sure whether we would have adopted that framework.

Regardless, I don't believe this requests a change to the document.

evyncke commented 3 years ago

No changes are required indeed as it is way too late.

It is symptomatic though that WG are isolated one from the other. Sigh... Nothing specific to QUIC though

-éric

De : Mike Bishop notifications@github.com Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2021 21:04 À : quicwg/base-drafts base-drafts@noreply.github.com Cc : Eric Vyncke eric@vyncke.org; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Objet : Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Éric Vyncke's QPACK Comment 1 (#4774)

No, we didn't. It's possible there would be some concepts we could have borrowed, but from a cursory examination, SCHC appears to be a framework for building a compression scheme rather than a concrete compression scheme. Given the focus on reducing individual bits and bytes out, I'm not sure whether we would have adopted that framework.

Regardless, I don't believe this requests a change to the document.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4774#issuecomment-763899207, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABC32H2TOMV3X5CSNS65SF3S24ZOJANCNFSM4WK7O67A.

LPardue commented 3 years ago

Given that QPACK's precursor, HPACK, was published in 2015 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7541 I'm surprised to see that SCHC has no mention of it ;-)

MikeBishop commented 3 years ago

I agree, and it's one of the things that concerns me about certain WGs forgoing meeting during IETF week and having interims instead; there's even less awareness of what other WGs are working on and where they can overlap. I do wish there'd been contact in either direction sooner, in case either group had ideas the other could have used. But here we are.

dtikhonov commented 3 years ago

On the bright side, I don't think SCHC would be applicable to HTTP/3 (or at least not be an improvement over HPACK).

LPardue commented 3 years ago

Since we agree no action is required, closing the issue.