Re: [dtn-dev] Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Security Protocol Spec.

Michael Demmer <demmer@cs.berkeley.edu> Wed, 25 May 2005 17:25 UTC

Received: from pisco (pisco.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.37.175]) by webbie.berkeley.intel-research.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4PHPRV31609; Wed, 25 May 2005 10:25:27 -0700
Received: from demmer by pisco with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DazdG-0004Ns-TH; Wed, 25 May 2005 10:25:26 -0700
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:25:26 -0700
From: Michael Demmer <demmer@cs.berkeley.edu>
To: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org
Cc: dtn-dev@mailman.dtnrg.org, "'Howard Weiss'" <howard.weiss@sparta.com>
Subject: Re: [dtn-dev] Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Security Protocol Spec.
Message-ID: <20050525172526.GF14911@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu>
References: <200505241854.j4OIsx724035@smtp-bedford-dr.mitre.org> <42944BEF.7090007@cs.tcd.ie> <20050525152006.GA7633@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu> <4294AB20.2000301@jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4294AB20.2000301@jpl.nasa.gov>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
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
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/>

> Anyway, I like this approach but have one caveat to offer: you
> actually can only have a maximum of 8 bytes following the
> discriminator, not 9:

Indeed you are correct -- my mistake in thinking I can be too clever
early in the morning... :)

> So the maximum value your number can have is (2**68 - 1).

This still seems big enough to me. Anyone have objections?

-m