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

Re: Frame Length Restrictions

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:30:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_ixbKZ0icmykZqgstSWF0nvOm8CbUw=BmYYb-9GzOo5OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.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>
>
>
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC