Hi, I think my intuition is that an implementation should stop when the implied length becomes absurd. Your idea of a max leg length does seem helpful, since it lets us have a shared definition of what is unreasonable.
Thanks, Matt ----- "Tom Keiser" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a second call for review of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03. > > Recently, Andrew and I discussed an implementation issue. We both > concluded that it is orthogonal to the specification. Nonetheless, I > wanted to bring it up on list to ask whether anyone feels that it > warrants a paragraph in the i-d. Briefly, the issue is that the > ext-union specification does not provide any way to specify a max leg > length. Hence, a client could send a 4GB leg without breaking the > specification. > > I think this also begs the question: is the above sufficient > motivation to revise the ext-union RPC-L grammar to include an > optional max-leg-length specification, -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
