[AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type

[Matt W. Benjamin]

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" <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> 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