Closed AAGiron closed 2 years ago
65535 is correct, though it is a bit confusing if unfamiliar with the syntax. This isn't the deceimal version but a separate value. The extra untagged value specifies the field width. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446.html#section-3.5
Strictly speaking, the field width is determined by the smallest that'll fit all values. Since 0xfe0d already implies a 2-byte value, we don't actually need it here. But typically we write down the maximum possible value to be explicit. See how the RFC 8446 definition also has a (65535)
.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446.html#section-4.2
And likewise otherdocuments which extend the enum tend to do as this draft does. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6066.html#section-1.1
Hi! Thanks for the clarification. I will close this now.
Hi,
just a small fix, section 5. states:
But instead of 65535 it should be 65037.