Hi Alan, With my apologies to everyone on the thread for so many mails in succession...
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 02:09:09PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > On Jan 29, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > With respect to the exporter usage, I do see you had asked about using the > > type-code as the exporter context value that Martin didn't see much value > > in, but I am willing to accept that as a boon for safety of portability to > > other TLS-using EAP mechanisms. > > OK. > > > (I do note that the current editor's copy > > shows calls to TLS-Exporter() with only two arguments, but three are > > required; the construction there also seems to include a propspect for > > violation of the requirement that "one label is not a prefix of any other > > label" when both regular one-byte and extended type codes are used, but if > > the type code is meant to be the context argument I believe that risk goes > > away.) > > The EAP type codes are one octet: 0x00 through 0xfd. The "expanded" type > codes begin with 0xfe. So there is no prefix issue, even if the type codes > form part of the label. Ah, of course I should have realized that the 0xfe octet separates them. You are correct; there is no issue with prefixes, and sorry for the confusion. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
