On Sep 2, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Patrick McManus wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> here is no
> need for padding within a frame. The security need is for padding to be
> allowed after a frame when both are enveloped within an opaque stream.
>
> Hi Roy -
>
> Nobody has mentioned this yet in this thread so I will. The existing design, which I think is universally regarded as awkward, meets the requirement for 1 byte minimum pads which is rooted in Thai Duong's comment here: Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 22:39:09 UTC