On 3 Nov 2016, at 0:23, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
thanks for that comment, i do agree it's misleading. I didn't have
time to
flesh out that thought, but what i meant is that one strategy could be
to
pad with a *random* percentage of the remaining space (with a new
random
percentage on each message, of course). "Fixed length" Random Length
padding with eg. an upper limit of 128 octects of padding would still
reveal the maximum original message length, while padding with a
random
percentage of the remaining space would not.
I will update the draft in the next revision accordingly, if there's
interest in continuing it.
Given that the padding was pretty unspecific, I think moving this draft
forwards would be a very good thing (and a very easy thing).
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
