New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Éric Vyncke's QPACK Comment 1 #4774
Comments
I do not believe we did. |
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. |
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 GitHub<#4774 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABC32H2TOMV3X5CSNS65SF3S24ZOJANCNFSM4WK7O67A>.
|
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 ;-) |
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. |
On the bright side, I don't think SCHC would be applicable to HTTP/3 (or at least not be an improvement over HPACK). |
Since we agree no action is required, closing the issue. |
@evyncke said
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: