- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 06:34:35 +0000
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <CAFewVt4K3oWXVO-0=M+iCVp8KEiutJ3zDM7YoUO=7FZONK3STg@mail.gmail.com> , Brian Smith writes: >On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> What do people think of Roy=E2=80=99s subsequent proposal to have a separ= >ate padding frame and always send it? Please be aware that changing the pad= >ding scheme would necessitate another round of security review. > >Consider an implementation that sends every frame in its own TCP >packet, perhaps with a 1 minute delay between frames. [...] If this was a joke, you forgot the smiley. If it wasn't, please explain why we should even think about entertaining the convenience of such an implementation, when 3/4 of the browsers cannot even think of a reason to support non-TLS traffic. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 06:34:57 UTC