RRC and sign_only
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
>>> 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