Re: late dtls-id request

Hi,

Just some background: the reason we used 256 was because that is what ICE
uses for the password and ufrag, as it is assumed to provide good enough
uniqueness.

But, I assume we can make that assumption also with 255.

Regards,

Chorister


On 09/03/17 08:30, "mmusic on behalf of Christer Holmberg"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
wrote:

>Hi Martin,
>
>I have received the same request off-line, so unless someone objects I am
>ok to do the change.
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>
>On 09/03/17 07:06, "mmusic on behalf of Martin Thomson"
><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Can I request the following change to the dtls-sdp doc:
>>
>>OLD:
>>              dtls-id-value = 6*256(dtls-id-char)
>>NEW:
>>              dtls-id-value = 6*255(dtls-id-char)
>>
>>I want to put this in a DTLS extension (see
>>draft-thomson-avtcore-sdp-uks; it would replace the session id that I
>>originally used) and a value that tops out at 256 requires a whole
>>extra length byte.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mmusic mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmusic mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic