I'm still struggling with this.
From a discussion with the other Mark I'd understood the consensus was
to limit device IDs to 240 octets. But then in:
The overhead of the scheme is 17 octets—1 for the pad indicator and 16 for the SIV tag—plus padding and plus the size of the tweak. Device identifiers that are greater than 233 octets
cannot be opacified using this scheme.
Note: 233 is the maximum size of a device ID with no padding and no tweak minus the overhead.
I don't understand the 233.
I think it would be safer to keep it vague, something like just:
NOTE--The maximum size of device ID that can be opacified using this scheme is the maximum size of device ID that can be communicated (see <wherever the 240 limit is specified>)
minus the opacification overhead (17 octets (1 for the pad indicator and 16 for the SIV tag) plus padding plus tweak).
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
1 Cambridge Square, Cambridge CB4 0AE Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Harkins, Dan <daniel.harkins@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2024 21:25
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] padding discussion
Please see document 11-24/1026r1 for proposed changes to address the continued issue with the padding description in the annex (plus the fixing of a typo).
Dan.
--
"the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1