Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming Consensus: Negotiating upper layer protocols

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:16:50 +0000

Martin Rex <[email-masked]> writes:

>Do we really need ProtocolNames > 255 chars?

No, not really, it was a cut-and-paste-and-edit from elsewhere :-).

>Btw. the lower bounds of container elements are usually set to the minimum
>possible length.  In your example, the lower bounds of protocol_name_list
>would be 3, I believe.

Sure.

>How about
>
>   opaque ProtocolName<1..2^8-1>;
>
>   struct {
>       ProtocolName protocol_name_list<2..2^16-1>
>   } ProtocolNameList;

Looks good.

Peter.