On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 00:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> commit 74bc8de3886728c5ace1a28a4c0eacf0c2d68275 > >> Author: Ben Kaduk <[email protected]> > >> Date: Wed Oct 24 22:22:10 2012 -0400 > >> > >> Use RXGK_Levels more appropriately > > [...] > >> @@ -403,7 +403,9 @@ enum RXGK_Level { > >> </t> > >> <t>To reduce the potential for denial of service attacks, servers > >> SHOULD only offer the CombineTokens operation to clients > >> connecting > >> - over an rxgk secured connection.</t> > >> + over an rxgk secured connection. The RXGK_Level of the rxgk > >> + connection does not affect the resiliance against denial of > >> + service attacks.</t> > > > > I find the purpose of that last sentence ("don't require any particular > > RXGK_Level") not immediately clear from that text. This is minor, but > > possible suggested text: [...] > This came from a note from the Deason/Keiser/Meffie/Vitale conference > call: > * (Paragraph 2) It would be helpful to indicate that rxgk level doesn't > matter: > clear is ok because contents are not susceptible to > sniffing/ > attack, i.e., this policy is merely DoS protection. > > I do think your text is more clear than mine, though I would add "SHOULD > accept CombineTokens connections" and maybe something about the resilience > of rxgk being as opposed to a non-secured connection. I'll put rewording > this on my todo list. Just to be clear, I understood what it was for, given the history and such; I wasn't forgetting what it was about :) I just mean, the text by itself just seems to state a fact and doesn't say what to do. ("okay, it doesn't affect DoS. so what?") And yes, those modifications sound good. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
