W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: h2 padding

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 06:34:35 +0000
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <62406.1409726075@critter.freebsd.dk>
--------
In message <CAFewVt4K3oWXVO-0=M+iCVp8KEiutJ3zDM7YoUO=7FZONK3STg@mail.gmail.com>
, Brian Smith writes:
>On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> What do people think of Roy=E2=80=99s subsequent proposal to have a separ=
>ate padding frame and always send it? Please be aware that changing the pad=
>ding scheme would necessitate another round of security review.
>
>Consider an implementation that sends every frame in its own TCP
>packet, perhaps with a 1 minute delay between frames. [...]

If this was a joke, you forgot the smiley.

If it wasn't, please explain why we should even think about entertaining
the convenience of such an implementation, when 3/4 of the browsers
cannot even think of a reason to support non-TLS traffic.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 06:34:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC