Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new

stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Wed, 01 June 2005 14:12 UTC

Received: from smtp.cs.tcd.ie (relay.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.32.56]) by webbie.berkeley.intel-research.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j51ECTV07190; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 07:12:29 -0700
Received: from smtp.cs.tcd.ie (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.cs.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id C942399B; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:12:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from webmail.cs.tcd.ie (wilde.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.32.55]) by smtp.cs.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB645C1; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:12:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from 62.233.4.129 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sfarrel6) by webmail.cs.tcd.ie with HTTP; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:12:27 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <14017.62.233.4.129.1117635147.squirrel@webmail.cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <429CDF24.9010907@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <200505241854.j4OIsx724035@smtp-bedford-dr.mitre.org> <42944BEF.7090007@cs.tcd.ie> <20050525152006.GA7633@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu> <42949E83.9050000@cs.tcd.ie> <20050525163707.GB14911@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu> <4294ABB9.5010009@jpl.nasa.gov> <4295D547.9080808@cs.tcd.ie> <20050531172941.GA30682@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu> <429CA577.8000705@jpl.nasa.gov> <20050531215551.GB30682@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu> <429CDF24.9010907@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:12:27 +0100 (IST)
Subject: Re: [dtn-security] Re: [dtn-dev] Re: SDNV-new
From: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
To: "Scott Burleigh" <Scott.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org, dtn-dev@mailman.dtnrg.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
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: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
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/>

> Michael Demmer wrote:
>
>>As Rajesh said, the main rational for the byte savings is for small
>>values. Therefore, for things we expect to be big, like crypto keys,
>>we can send the length of the key first as an SDNV, then the
>>value. This won't waste too much over just sending the key as an SDNV
>>by itself (at most it wastes a byte or two).
>>
>>As such, my instinct is to just go with 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8.
>>
> That sounds fine to me.

Ditto - so we should e.g. refactor the specs so that
security value and security parameters (when present)
consist of an SDNV for the length and then a field
for the value.

Not sure if we want to directly allow for the case
where a short MAC is directly encoded in an SDNV, but
I'll think about it - no need to hold up anything
on that basis alone,

Stephen.


>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-dev mailing list
> dtn-dev@mailman.dtnrg.org
> http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-dev
>
>