- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:06:08 -0700
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Cc: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, K.Morgan@iaea.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21 April 2014 13:20, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: [lots] I was there :) I guess that I just don't find the problem particularly appealing. I understand the mathematics; if an originating server or client fills packets precisely, there is no space to use for padding and the only option is an 8 byte chunk. It's probably more due to a reluctance to accept the premise. The part of the premise that is most problematic is the one where you assume the intermediary cannot re-frame packets. A sender that knows that it might want to pad can easily frame to in 16376 byte chunks. And then any amount of padding is available to them. And that option is available to every sender, intermediary or otherwise.
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 21:06:39 UTC