[AFS3-std] Re: Last Call: afs3-rxgk-04, afs3-rxgk-afs-02

[Andrew Deason]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:43:09 -0400 (EDT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> >>>>       typedef opaque RXGK_Data<>;
> >>> [ ... ]
> >>>>           RXGK_Data token;
[...]
> >> If we were to explicitly limit the size of a token (or a generic
> >> RXGK_Data, I suppose), what would such a limit be?  If we start
> >> talking about X.509 identities, maybe 16k is too small?
> >
> > Some care is called for here.  We've had issues in the past with
> > limits on token sizes, so we should try to avoid setting one that is
> > too small.
> >
> > I think perhaps the right thing here might be to say that the limit
> > is implementation-defined (or subject to local policy), but MUST NOT
> > be less than a certain value.
> 
> I could see doing something like that.

So, does this mean each rxgk-using application gets its own slightly
different RPC-L? To make it easier, of course at least define a constant
for all of these and just have the application define it. Unless we're
talking about just not putting limits in the RPC-L, and having the XDR
decoder enforce these limits a different way.

I would say just use a limit of 100M or something and forget about it,
but if this can somehow work well with specifying this per-application,
then sure.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net