Howard Chu writes: >Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: >> I wrote: >>> Also the index is wrong for huge numbers. At some point the indexing >>> should just give up and use max/min values, but I suppose at least >>> cryptograpy-sized numbers should be usefully indexed. I.e. at least >>> two length bytes. > > I wonder about that. Two length bytes implies 512Kbit numbers. Who's > going to be storing those in LDAP?
2 "length bytes" - (3 sign bits and delimiter bit) => 31Kbit, I think. But yes. I merely wrote support for more than 2 length bytes since it didn't seem more code than for 0-2 length bytes. >> Eeh. It makes more sense to check for ridiculous-sized numbers before >> parsing them and just output a min/max value depending on sign. (Or >> right-truncate e.g. n*12 digits and add n*5 to the length.) > > Sounds fine. Looking at it now... not sure if I'll have time today though. (I assume I can go ahead and change the size, since you just changed the presence key size.) -- Regards, Hallvard
