On 01/22/2016 09:42 AM, =JeffH wrote: > [ resending from different account - my work addr ends up in spam > bucket for many it seems ] > > On 1/20/16, 11:01 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <bka...@akamai.com> wrote: > >On 01/20/2016 12:47 PM, Hodges, Jeff wrote: > >> On 1/13/16, 12:53 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <bka...@akamai.com> wrote: > >>> On 01/13/2016 02:44 PM, Jong-Shian Wu wrote: > >>>> I have a question about the even-vs-odd restrictions on the > length of > >>>> a valid variable-length vector defined in TLS specification after > >>>> reading the section 4.3 of RFC 5246 [1] which states that: > >>>> "The length of an encoded vector must be an even multiple of the > >>>>length > >>>> of a single element (for example, a 17-byte vector of uint16 > would be > >>>> illegal)." > >>>> > >>> It means "whole-number" as opposed to fractional, i.e., there should > >>>not > >>> be unused "junk bytes" at the end. > >> In case it's helpful, here's a suggested re-write of that quoted > >>sentence > >> above.. > >> > >> The length of an encoded variable-length vector must be an > >> exact multiple of the length of a single element. For example, > >> an encoded 17-byte vector of uint16 would be illegal, and an > >> encoded variable-length vector of four 32 byte elements, > >> having a ceiling of 2^16-1, will be 130 bytes long overall > >> (2 byte length field followed by 128 bytes of data). > > > >Wouldn't the ceiling more properly be 2^16-4 in that case? > > hm, I'm not sure -- what would be the rationale? The exact multiple > criteria? but 2^16 / 32 = 2048 while (2^16-4) / 32 = 2047.875
Ah, I seem to have conflated bits and bytes due to reading too quickly and should have said (2^16-32), as Ilari alluded to with "or rounding thereof to integral multiple of elements". Sorry for the confusion. -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
