[OpenTRV-dev] Christmas secure protocol joy!

[Jeremy Poulter]

If I am reading it correctly you have the total packet length (including
the body) as the first byte so I am OK with the body size immediately
proceeding the body data and in general this should be the same format for
all variable length fields (no checked this is the case in detail).

Just my 2p worth.

Jeremy
On 24 Dec 2015 10:27, "Damon Hart-Davis" <damon at opentrv.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> http://www.earth.org.uk/OpenTRV/stds/network/20151203-DRAFT-SecureBasicFrame.txt
>
> Matthew W suggests that parsing (etc) might be significantly easier if the
> body length field was moved up somewhere in front of the variable-length ID
> field (or if the ID length was fixed, but I’m pretty certain that I don’t
> want to take that path).
>
> I’m loathe to separate the body length from the body, but I’m interested
> in other views on this.  Simplicity in parsing/generating is very valuable
> for the sorts of small systems that this protocol is aimed at.
>
> Will Santa bring us a working protocol?  B^>
>
> Rgds
>
> Damon
> _______________________________________________
> OpenTRV-dev mailing list
> OpenTRV-dev at lists.opentrv.org.uk
> http://lists.opentrv.org.uk/listinfo/opentrv-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opentrv.org.uk/pipermail/opentrv-dev/attachments/20151229/e61dbde1/attachment.html>