Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5c9c3e: Use "Insert Count" rather than "Largest Reference"

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:03:19 -0800

Branch: refs/heads/insert-count
  Home:   https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts
  Commit: 5c9c3ee45d8a8440dea836839eafa6d2dcdfb31c
      https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/commit/5c9c3ee45d8a8440dea836839eafa6d2dcdfb31c
  Author: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
  Date:   2018-12-11 (Tue, 11 Dec 2018)

  Changed paths:
    M draft-ietf-quic-qpack.md

  Log Message:
  -----------
  Use "Insert Count" rather than "Largest Reference"

The construction of largest reference currently implies the use of
1-based indexing, which is unnatural.  Using the insert count is much
more natural, even if it means the encoding is a little strange and a
tiny bit inefficient (it goes 0, 2, 3, ..., Max-1, 1, 2, ...).

I've gone through and put the references on the boundary between
records, which makes explanations much easier for post-base indexing in
my view.  I've renamed Base Index (which was never really an index) to
Base, which matches that change.  Similarly, renaming Largest Known
Received to Known Received Count makes it match better.

There are also examples added to Insert Count and Base sections.  These
definitions are pretty damned opaque without them.

      **NOTE:** This service has been marked for deprecation: https://developer.github.com/changes/2018-04-25-github-services-deprecation/

      Functionality will be removed from GitHub.com on January 31st, 2019.