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

Re: Padding for PUSH_PROMISE frames

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:39:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_iOR6itvLQ6KSme7AEP32n5JktNPfvB=O5JGiOrAjJuxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
Cc: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Should we consider adding padding to all frames?

We have two bits reserved at the beginning of the length field that we
could use for the two padding flags, independent of frame type.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>wrote:

> All,
>
> Right now (as of draft-10), DATA, HEADERS, and CONTINUATION frames can
> contain padding to obscure the actual size of the data being sent. I
> believe it would make sense to also add the option for padding to
> PUSH_PROMISE frames, as they carry (pretty much) the same type of payload
> as HEADERS frames, and can benefit from padding in the same way.
>
> I can make a pull request if others think this is a good idea.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Nick
>
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 05:39:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC