On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> my understanding of this draft was that the TLS1.3 ContentType is included in
> the record limit while it is not included in the TLS 1.3 maximum payload size
That's right, I forgot this detail. I subtract 1 for TLS 1.3 when I
set the variable
On Monday, 25 September 2017 04:12:09 CEST Martin Thomson wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> I appreciate that the way that you calculate the available space is
> difficult, but I did think very long and hard about this.
>
> The current approach makes it easier for someone to *comply* with the
> size limit
Hi Hannes,
I appreciate that the way that you calculate the available space is
difficult, but I did think very long and hard about this.
The current approach makes it easier for someone to *comply* with the
size limit and I'd like to retain that property as much as possible.
I want people to impl
Hi Hubert,
your proposal to include the worst case calculations are indeed another
possibility. It provides more information for the developer than the
current version of the document.
A few additional remarks:
On 09/12/2017 08:11 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 14:30:48
On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 14:30:48 CEST Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I have implemented the record size extension into mbed TLS. It can be
> found at https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/1088
>
> There is only one problem that remains to be addressed IMHO. This
> extension was
Hi Martin,
I have implemented the record size extension into mbed TLS. It can be
found at https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/1088
There is only one problem that remains to be addressed IMHO. This
extension was developed to address the problem of devices with small
RAM. Application developers
