From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx16.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Type Transcriptions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <JF35v.73812$%x6.48858@fx16.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:21:13 UTC
Organization: TeraNews.com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 01:21:13 -0600
X-Received-Bytes: 2333
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2864296769
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19467
Date: 2014-04-21T01:21:13-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I recently started a little project intended to implement TLS 1.2 in Ada 
2012 and SPARK; reading through the RFC and transcribing the types has 
been relatively straightforward.

However there is one hiccup; a certain class of record-type is dependent 
on the values in another record, yet distinctly separate; ex:


       struct {
          opaque nonce_explicit[SecurityParameters.record_iv_length];
          aead-ciphered struct {
              opaque content[TLSCompressed.length];
          };
       } GenericAEADCipher;

where SecurityParameters is

       struct {
           ConnectionEnd          entity;
           PRFAlgorithm           prf_algorithm;
           BulkCipherAlgorithm    bulk_cipher_algorithm;
           CipherType             cipher_type;
           uint8                  enc_key_length;
           uint8                  block_length;
           uint8                  fixed_iv_length;
           uint8                  record_iv_length;
           MACAlgorithm           mac_algorithm;
           uint8                  mac_length;
           uint8                  mac_key_length;
           CompressionMethod      compression_algorithm;
           opaque                 master_secret[48];
           opaque                 client_random[32];
           opaque                 server_random[32];
       } SecurityParameters;

Now I've already transcribed the SecurityParameters parameters record, 
but it seems to me that since these other types are dependent on the 
SecurityParameters, I could change it into a generic package with the 
record's current components being input parameters.

Any advice on which route to take would be greatly appreciated.