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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 22 July 2005 08:19 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvsks-000547-BX; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:19:38 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvskp-00053z-NJ for rfid@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:19:36 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA22380 for <rfid@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:19:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvtEx-0001VE-Cg for rfid@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:50:48 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B60B26C135; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:19:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from maya40.nic.fr (maya40.nic.fr [192.134.4.151]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B66B26C134; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:19:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from batilda.nic.fr (postfix@batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by maya40.nic.fr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id j6M8J6uT774732; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:19:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by batilda.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE3E116A9D9; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:19:06 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:19:06 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: David Husak <dhusak@revasystems.com>
Message-ID: <20050722081906.GA16237@nic.fr>
References: <0E03681B885F3B4296B999E34435A16E01234C2B@ms08.mse3.exchange.ms>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0E03681B885F3B4296B999E34435A16E01234C2B@ms08.mse3.exchange.ms>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mx2.nic.fr
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: rfid@ietf.org
Subject: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary
X-BeenThere: rfid@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Control and Access of Infrastructure for RFID Operations Discussion List <rfid.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid>, <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rfid>
List-Post: <mailto:rfid@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid>, <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org

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