Éric Vyncke's QPACK Comment 1

[LPardue]

@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]

I do not believe we did.

[MikeBishop]

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]

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>.

[LPardue]

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]

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]

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]

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