From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:35348 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753300AbbFAOCB (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:02:01 -0400 Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so76685349wic.0 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:01:57 +0200 From: Alexander Aring Subject: Re: [RFC] the problem of on-the-wire byte order in ieee802154 Message-ID: <20150601140156.GE1195@omega> References: <20150528140934.GG11340@wantstofly.org> <20150528162702.785e1f1c@zoidberg> <20150529041723.GN11340@wantstofly.org> <20150529074419.GA2557@omega> <20150529080821.GO11340@wantstofly.org> <20150529083145.GA3709@omega> <55682914.6060109@xsilon.com> <20150529091129.GB3709@omega> <20150601134915.GE1897@wantstofly.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150601134915.GE1897@wantstofly.org> Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Lennert Buytenhek Cc: Simon Vincent , Phoebe Buckheister , linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 04:49:15PM +0300, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:11:33AM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote: > > > > I noticed the 802.15.4 spec has test vectors for the crypto that > > > show the byte order of the address. > > > See 802.15.4-2011 spec [1] > > > Annex C, Section C.2.1.1 > > > > > > source address 0xacde480000000001 is represented in a packet as. > > > 08 D0 84 21 43 01 00 00 00 00 48 DE AC || 02 05 00 00 00 || 55 CF 00 00 51 > > > 52 53 54 22 3B C1 EC 84 1A > > > B5 53. > > > > thanks for this note. That shows that the LSB "01" of > > 0xacde480000000001 is send at the first of the packet. Then it > > should be little endian, or? (In case of this example). > > That's what this example suggests, yes -- as 01-00-00-00-00-48-DE-AC > would not be a valid source address, as it is a group address. Note, > however, that Annex C is an informative annex, and not a normative > annex. > > I've reached out to the IEEE for clarification of this issue, let's > see what they come up with. oh, "where" did you do that exactly? - Alex