<[email protected]> writes:
> As far as I can see, the original text is correct, which is easy to
> see if you look at the corresponding paragraph of RFC 4347 (DTLS 1.0):
>
> version
> The version of the protocol being employed. This document
> describes DTLS Version 1.0, which uses the version { 254, 255 }.
> The version value of 254.255 is the 1's complement of DTLS
> Version 1.0.
>
> If the suggested text had been correct, then the encoding in RFC 4347
> would have been { 254, 254 } as DTLS 1.0 is based on TLS 1.1.
You're right, { 254, 255 } is the complement of { 1, 0 }, so the erratum
must be incorrect.
Oddly, the following sentence in RFC 4347 is factually incorrect as an
architectural statement but is correct as a description of the protocol:
"This maximal spacing between TLS and DTLS version numbers ensures ..."
The Hamming spacing isn't maximal, that would be obtained with { 254,
254 }, but it is the value that is used and it does ensure that the
protocols are easily distinguished.
Dale
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
