RE: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary

Stephane,

>From the security perspective, the protocol processing is layered on top of standard security mechanisms as discussed in Section 4.2 of the draft.  Therefore, the implementation can safely access fields in payload as efficiently as possible.

Scott

________________________________

From: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org on behalf of Stephane Bortzmeyer
Sent: Fri 7/22/2005 4:19 AM
To: David Husak
Cc: rfid@ietf.org
Subject: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary

On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 07:56:22PM -0400,
 David Husak <dhusak@revasystems.com> wrote
 a message of 213 lines which said:

> In a compact, fixed binary encoding, it's easy for an implementation
> to access protocol fields directly via indexed load and store,
> i.e. an implementation need only access the bytes it needs, and it
> knows where those bytes are.

#define WARNING "newbie"

I've read quite often this statement in IETF discussions. I am not an
implementer but I wonder if this idea of blindly retrieving bits
coming from the newtork is really what the implementers do. Because it
seems there is a security issue here: since the bits come from a
possibly untrusted source (either because it is malicious or because
it is buggy), you surely validate them in some way, first, and
therefore you have to parse the incoming data, no?

_______________________________________________
Rfid mailing list
Rfid@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid