RRC and sign_only

Love Hörnquist Åstrand lha at kth.se
Wed Dec 17 19:14:09 EST 2008

>>> 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.

Greg say that the api use must be limited to STREAM use, everything  
else is of bounds, I don't agree with that.an


More information about the krbdev mailing list