From answer only sent to mailing list:
Yeah, it looks right. I haven't yet got it working with my test case,
because I need to use DTLS1_BAD_VER and there are other parts missing
from HEAD for that, on top of my patch in #1751 -- but I agree with your
assessment that it shouldn't be needed any
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:51 +0200, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
Could you comment on the 0.9.9-dev branch as well?
The patch to d1_pkt.c applies fine. The length object is gone from the
code so it should not be needed any longer.
Yeah, it looks right. I haven't yet got it working with my test
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Oct 07 10:57:04 2008]:
This patch to the 0.9.8 branch fixes two bugs with misordered incoming
packets in DTLS, which are reported as RT #1752.
Could you comment on the 0.9.9-dev branch as well?
The patch to d1_pkt.c applies fine. The length object is gone from the
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 13:39 +0200, Lutz Jaenicke wrote:
David Woodhouse via RT wrote:
(Was waiting for the RT to autoreply with a number before I followed up,
but it doesn't seem to have arrived after half an hour, so I'll send
anyway. Hopefully the References: header will associate this
If incoming data packets are received out of order, they seem to get
dropped by my test case using blocking I/O.
Worse, my real application using non-blocking I/O seems to just receive
garbage when the out-of-order packet arrives.
Even the blocking behaviour seems inappropriate for DTLS.
(Was waiting for the RT to autoreply with a number before I followed up,
but it doesn't seem to have arrived after half an hour, so I'll send
anyway. Hopefully the References: header will associate this with the
previous mail anyway...)
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 21:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
David Woodhouse via RT wrote:
(Was waiting for the RT to autoreply with a number before I followed up,
but it doesn't seem to have arrived after half an hour, so I'll send
anyway. Hopefully the References: header will associate this with the
previous mail anyway...)
Mailings to rt are
