RRC and sign_only

Sam Hartman hartmans at MIT.EDU
Wed Dec 17 12:15:46 EST 2008

>>>>> "Love" == Love Hörnquist Åstrand <lha at kth.se> writes:

    Love> 17 dec 2008 kl. 07:47 skrev Greg Hudson:

    >> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 08:13 +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
    >> wrote:
    >>> I think it don't make sense to have different semantics
    >>> depending on which api an application uses. And we should
    >>> allow every per RFC valid request with any api.
    >>  If you are using the IOV API in non-stream mode, you are not
    >> really using the RFC wire format; you're using an extension.
    >> It's reasonable for this extension to have restrictions not
    >> imposed by the RFC.

I have to agree with Greg.
If you would e explain why you disagree, it would be easier to see where we're coming from.

Consider for example a buffer layout with 10 bytes of data, a trailer,
the header and then the remainder of data.  Even without sign_only,
that layout will never be produced by RFC 4121.

More information about the krbdev mailing list