On May 15, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Richard Levitte wrote:
Bérczi, please try it out and tell me if that changed things.
This has indeed fixed it, thank you.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.or
make
making all in crypto...
making all in crypto/objects...
making all in crypto/md4...
making all in crypto/md5...
making all in crypto/sha...
making all in crypto/mdc2...
making all in crypto/hmac...
making all in crypto/ripemd...
making all in crypto/whrlpool...
making all in crypto/des...
mak
Hi Daniel,
for discussing IETF specifications, you might want to use the
appropriate
IETF mailing list...
However, as stated in my other mail, I think the definition on the RFC
is
correct. Your definition does only work for DTLS/UDP/IPv4 without using
IP options. In all other cases your de
Hi Daniel,
I talked to Robin yesterday and based on that discussion Robin
provided a
patch. But thinking a bit more about this, I think we'll have to
change the
patch...
DTLS should not care about its lower layer. It can be UDP/IPv4, UDP/
IPv6,
DCCP/IPv4, DCCP/IPv6, SCTP/IPv4, SCTP/IPv6,
I'm wondering if there's also an error in RFC 4347 section 4.1.1:
"[...] the maximum application datagram size, which is the PMTU minus
the DTLS per-record overhead [...]"
Shouldn't it be phrased like this:
the maximum application datagram size, which is the PMTU minus the IP
per-packet over
