Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new
Rajesh Krishnan <krash@bbn.com> Thu, 26 May 2005 21:26 UTC
Received: from a.bbn.com (a.bbn.com [128.89.80.80]) by webbie.berkeley.intel-research.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4QLQMV09725; Thu, 26 May 2005 14:26:23 -0700
Received: (from krash@localhost) by a.bbn.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id j4QLQHq01249; Thu, 26 May 2005 17:26:17 -0400
From: Rajesh Krishnan <krash@bbn.com>
Message-Id: <200505262126.j4QLQHq01249@a.bbn.com>
Subject: Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new
To: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 17:26:17 -0400
Cc: dtn-dev@mailman.dtnrg.org
In-Reply-To: <20050526184825.GE4301@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu> from "Michael Demmer" at May 26, 2005 11:48:25 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dtn-security-admin@mailman.dtnrg.org
Errors-To: dtn-security-admin@mailman.dtnrg.org
X-BeenThere: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org
X-Reply-To: krash@bbn.com
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: DTN Security Discussion <dtn-security.mailman.dtnrg.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.dtnrg.org/pipermail/dtn-security/>
> > I don't much care one way or another. Do we really think we're > > likely to need to represent numbers bigger than (2*68) - 1 in SDNVs? > > Very doubtful if all they're used for is lengths, maybe so if they're > used for other things like crypto keys and such. > > > If so, what convinces us that we're likely to need 16 bytes but not > > equally likely to need 128 bytes? Certainly we can use an encoding > > scheme like this, or lots of others (for example, 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 > > 128), but the fact that we can doesn't necessarily mean we should. > > What's the rationale for this particular system? > > Well -- mostly a gut feeling at the time that we may find 12 and 16 > more useful than 5 and 7, but I confess that I don't have any > particular proposed use cases or concrete justification for this > feeling. So I'm really fine either way as well. I do not know what possible uses are being considered for SDNVs in DTNs, but it may be worth taking a look at some common sizes of interest. 1B Bluetooth. (B = Byte). 4B IPv4. 6B Ethernet. 12D for UPC (D = decimal digit). 13D for ISBN. 13D for European Article Numbering. 15D for E.164. 16B IPv6. 20B ATM End System Address. > 16 octets. 128B 1024-bit Cryptographic keys 512B 4096-bit Cryptographic keys and signatures are supported by several implementations Best Regards, Rajesh
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Scott Burleigh
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Michael Demmer
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Rajesh Krishnan
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Scott Burleigh
- Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Scott Burleigh
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Michael Demmer
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Howard Weiss
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Rajesh Krishnan
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Scott Burleigh
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Michael Demmer
- Re: are offsets enough? --was: (dictionary or not… Michael Demmer
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Michael Demmer
- [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Scott Burleigh
- I18N (was: Re: (dictionary or not) Re: [dtn-secur… Stephen Farrell
- [dtn-security] Re: are offsets enough? --was: (di… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Stephen Farrell
- [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Michael Demmer
- RE:are offsets enough? --was: (dictionary or not)… Susan F. Symington
- Re: [dtn-dev] Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of th… Michael Demmer
- [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Michael Demmer
- Re: (dictionary or not) Re: [dtn-security] 00 ver… Scott Burleigh
- [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Scott Burleigh
- Re: [dtn-dev] Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of th… Scott Burleigh
- Re: (dictionary or not) Re: [dtn-security] 00 ver… Michael Demmer
- Re: SDNV-new (was: Re: [dtn-security] 00 version … Michael Demmer
- Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Wesley Eddy
- SDNV-new (was: Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of t… Stephen Farrell
- Re: (dictionary or not) Re: [dtn-security] 00 ver… Stephen Farrell
- Re: (dictionary or not) Re: [dtn-security] 00 ver… Michael Demmer
- RE: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Susan F. Symington
- (dictionary or not) Re: [dtn-security] 00 version… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Michael Demmer
- Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Michael Demmer
- Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Stephen Farrell
- [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Security … Susan F. Symington
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: SDNV-new : OK Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Stephen Farrell
- [dtn-security] Re: SDNV-new : OK Manikantan Ramadas
- Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Howard Weiss
- Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Scott Burleigh
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new Manikantan Ramadas
- RE: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Secur… Susan F. Symington
- Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new stephen.farrell
- Re: [dtn-security] meeting at IETF? Kevin Fall
- [dtn-security] meeting at IETF? Sandra Murphy