On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:02:34PM -0800, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Ensuring that you know the length of the *next* record is difficult
> and could dramatically degrade latency, or adding extra bogus padding
> or extra bogus records. For instance, I can always send in bursts of
> two packets, a one octet packet that promises the remainder of the
> burst and one that promises a single octet packet. At that point, I
> get to do what I've always done and you have gained little other than
> an increase in packet size of around 19 octets (best case).
We're missing an opportunity to implement ATM again. The magic
cell size is 53 bytes, 5 bytes of header and 48 bytes of payload.
With the cell length always 53 bytes, there's no longer any need
to send or encrypt that length. :-)
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
