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

Re: Padding should be specified for PUSH_PROMISE frames too?

From: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 11:13:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEn92TruUtwUNgPSe2yT4o3Vw8nb-RRwxOAMmUnyBXw-yCF=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Thackray <jthackray+http2@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jonathan,

It's an oversight in draft 10. The current editor's copy of the
draft<http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#PUSH_PROMISE>includes padding
on PUSH_PROMISE as well.

cheers,
-johnny


On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Thackray <
jthackray+http2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm currently writing an implementation of the HTTP/2 draft 10
> specification. I was
> puzzled that (optional) padding is specified for HEADERS and CONTINUATION
> frames (because they contain header block fragments, to obscure the
> message
> length), but the PUSH_PROMISE frame format, which also contains header
> block
> fragments, doesn't allow arbitrary padding.
>
> As the draft currently stands, you can only send a PUSH_PROMISE frame
> without
> any padding for the first header block fragment, then subsequent
> CONTINUATION
> frames containing additional header block fragments with padding.
>
> Is this an oversight? Surely it should have padding as well, to be
> consistent.
> Or is this because headers sent from the server are not considered
> deserving
> of padding to obscure their length (and possible contents)? I couldn't
> see this
> listed on the "issues" page on GitHub, so raising this issue here.
>
> Many thanks,
> Jonathan.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 15:14:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC