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

[[e-mail]]

> 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
> [e-mail]
> http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-dev
>
>