Re: Frame Length Restrictions

• From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:03:43 -0700
• To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.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>
• Message-ID: <CABkgnnVv=cumirV2CS2TEVvXzKGa-KpULw7adnOrb6fKJVruyA@mail.gmail.com>

On 21 April 2014 17:30, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> 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.

Not so.

Rather than 8 bytes of overhead every 2^14-1 bytes, you have 8 bytes
of overhead every 2^14-9 (or 8, which is be sufficient).  If that's a
problem, then any sort of framing overhead is a problem.

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 04:04:18 UTC