- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:27:21 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/09/2014 6:34 p.m., Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- 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. > HTTP/2 over DTLS. Amos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUBvsZAAoJELJo5wb/XPRj1/gH/i5taIlRim4VGboHafPGYdhh 9dOdgxj3zJlkXUPZJuXVD1ragRAXJtgJC8+eeJrjpmYc0KtOxhkDx32RzgVX8LuX 9i5fT7qn0Otz0+rfJeR9CK7seUKQPCYokrbDQEgvZ/WBigE+ACoKf3GreCJdauoc yf7TJCifVTdEMXvE8NMUb9kqD76lfPCYaX/7ZUj2Ocovk3LhL8neFFQZR4yLzbnU ljKyWP+XQ2xFgDYz6fbJ2LTN3URCeyp0y1ltgnCqqVxDuN/qL5+YlTZ+tKiHbRmg 7PLRAkTUMikyyORIY3+SpTsTKLqhGW82VeZPC2RTzZcFW/x+sm9Q8p+RdUCc60I= =4cEX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 11:27:59 UTC