On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, at 19:03, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> I do not think that 64 is not hard to implement, but I think it is very
> hard to implement it in a way that it is efficient.
Totally agree. There's like a curve for performance with an asymptote as
records get bigger and a steep
On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 16:13 +1100, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019, at 19:02, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > My interpretation is that, if the client sent "record_size_limit"
> > but
> > didn't receive the extension from the server, that would mean the
> > extension was not negotiated and the s
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019, at 19:02, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> My interpretation is that, if the client sent "record_size_limit" but
> didn't receive the extension from the server, that would mean the
> extension was not negotiated and the server may not respect the limit.
>
> Is this correct, or 64 is reall
