[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: spec bug?....DH_GROUP_LEN should be DH_SEC_LEN in section 0.3?

To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: spec bug?....DH_GROUP_LEN should be DH_SEC_LEN in section 0.3?
From: Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:27:44 -0500
Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-dev-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-dev@seul.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:27:58 -0500
In-reply-to: <20061221013639.GD14010@seberino.org>
Mail-followup-to: Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20061221013639.GD14010@seberino.org>
Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 08:36:39PM -0500, chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I'm going through Tor spec hoping to maybe create a Python reimplementation.
> 
> I was told on #tor this is where to post errata for Tor spec.  Please correct
> me if I'm wrong.....
> 
> Should DH_GROUP_LEN should be DH_SEC_LEN in section 0.3?

Good catch!  I'll check in a fix.

yrs,
-- 
Nick Mathewson

Attachment: pgp5VMno3Zc0D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

References:
- spec bug?....DH_GROUP_LEN should be DH_SEC_LEN in section 0.3?
  - From: chris

Prev by Author: Re: When to add flags to network status vs adding new items
Next by Author: Re: PAYLOAD_LEN bug in spec?
Previous by thread: spec bug?....DH_GROUP_LEN should be DH_SEC_LEN in section 0.3?
Next by thread: RSA-OAEP info trying to find...
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread