- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 11:16:39 -0700
- To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19 April 2014 15:07, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote: > it only the on-the-wire size that matters. This is, I think, the reason that this change makes me uncomfortable. We have a small frame for a good reason; and allowing padding to greater than that size is in direct opposition to that. (I briefly thought that this proposed change wouldn't cause issues in this regard, because the padding could be easily discarded. But that's a great way to negate any benefit gained by padding.)
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 18:17:07 UTC