> > > Presumably you could take those 16K frames and split them into 16K-9 > frames before adding padding. You could even ask the upstream servers > not to produce 16K frames. You could even ask the upstream servers to > pad properly. > I could only split frames if I always split frames, otherwise I would leak the original message size. If I always split frames than this is equivalent to having an 8-byte minimum on padding. In this case we should just use a specific padding frame instead of adding padding fields to every data frame based on flags. Especially since that removes the need to check if the padding length exceeds the frame length. So let me ask that question then: Why is an 8-byte minimum on padding unacceptable?
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 00:30:33 UTC