Re: [openssl.org #1105] DTLS HelloVerifyRequest PATCH

2005-06-29 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT 

 So the bug report can be removed, right?

Yes, the report can be removed.  It is not a bug.

 (and *please* keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] among the recipients.  It's quite
 hard to follow history in the database when people keep skipping that
 address)

Apologies.

nagendra

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #1105] DTLS HelloVerifyRequest PATCH

2005-06-29 Thread Richard Levitte via RT 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jun 29 17:43:06 2005]:

  So the bug report can be removed, right?
 
 Yes, the report can be removed.  It is not a bug.

Thanks.

Ticket resolved.

-- 
Richard Levitte
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #1105] DTLS HelloVerifyRequest PATCH

2005-06-27 Thread Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT 

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:30:40 -0700, nagendra 
modadugu [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

nagendra It turns out that the Version field was omitted from the
nagendra HelloVerify message in the internet draft.  The document 
nagendra will be corrected.

So the bug report can be removed, right?

(and *please* keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] among the recipients.  It's quite
hard to follow history in the database when people keep skipping that
address)

Cheers,
Richard

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://richard.levitte.org/

When I became a man I put away childish things, including
 the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
-- C.S. Lewis

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #1105] DTLS HelloVerifyRequest PATCH

2005-06-25 Thread nagendra modadugu 

It turns out that the Version field was omitted from the
HelloVerify message in the internet draft.  The document 
will be corrected.

nagendra

* nagendra modadugu [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-08 17:09:40 -0700]:

 
 I think you might have found a bug in the draft document.  I'll get back
 to you soon.  Thanks,
 
 nagendra
 
 * Tigran Gevorgyan via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-08 22:00:58 +0200]:
 
  
  
  Hello,
I apologize if this message appears multiple times.
  
  This is a proposed patch for openssl-0.9.8-beta for all platforms.
  I tested it with openssl-0.9.8beta2 however I think it is applicable to 
  all openssl-0.9.8 trees.
  
  
 I think the current implementation of DTLS is not compliant with the
  draft. According to
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-dtls-04.txt Section
  4.3 the HelloVerifyRequest is defined like this:
  
  struct {
 Cookie cookie0..32;
   } HelloVerifyRequest;
  
  The 0.9.8-beta2 implementation has two additional octets which specify
  the protocol version. Is this according to a newer version of the DTLS
  draft or is it an error?
  Attached is a patch that removes the code that parses and generates this
  additional octets.
  
  Thanks
 Tigran Gevorgyan
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the 
  intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged 
  information.  Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
  prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
  sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.  
  Thank you.
  __
  OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
  Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
  Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 __
 OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
 Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
 Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #1105] DTLS HelloVerifyRequest PATCH

2005-06-17 Thread Richard Levitte via RT 

I'm leaving this unresolved for now, since we still don't know if that's 
a bug in the draft or not...

-- 
Richard Levitte
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #1105] DTLS HelloVerifyRequest PATCH

2005-06-08 Thread Tigran Gevorgyan via RT 


Hello,
  I apologize if this message appears multiple times.

This is a proposed patch for openssl-0.9.8-beta for all platforms.
I tested it with openssl-0.9.8beta2 however I think it is applicable to 
all openssl-0.9.8 trees.


   I think the current implementation of DTLS is not compliant with the
draft. According to
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-dtls-04.txt Section
4.3 the HelloVerifyRequest is defined like this:

struct {
   Cookie cookie0..32;
 } HelloVerifyRequest;

The 0.9.8-beta2 implementation has two additional octets which specify
the protocol version. Is this according to a newer version of the DTLS
draft or is it an error?
Attached is a patch that removes the code that parses and generates this
additional octets.

Thanks
   Tigran Gevorgyan







This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  
Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are 
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message.  Thank you.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #1105] DTLS HelloVerifyRequest PATCH

2005-06-08 Thread nagendra modadugu 

I think you might have found a bug in the draft document.  I'll get back
to you soon.  Thanks,

nagendra

* Tigran Gevorgyan via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-08 22:00:58 +0200]:

 
 
 Hello,
   I apologize if this message appears multiple times.
 
 This is a proposed patch for openssl-0.9.8-beta for all platforms.
 I tested it with openssl-0.9.8beta2 however I think it is applicable to 
 all openssl-0.9.8 trees.
 
 
I think the current implementation of DTLS is not compliant with the
 draft. According to
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-dtls-04.txt Section
 4.3 the HelloVerifyRequest is defined like this:
 
 struct {
Cookie cookie0..32;
  } HelloVerifyRequest;
 
 The 0.9.8-beta2 implementation has two additional octets which specify
 the protocol version. Is this according to a newer version of the DTLS
 draft or is it an error?
 Attached is a patch that removes the code that parses and generates this
 additional octets.
 
 Thanks
Tigran Gevorgyan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the 
 intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged 
 information.  Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender 
 by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.  Thank you.
 __
 OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
 Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
 Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]