From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jan 20 21:39:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39A415295 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:39:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from workhorse (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15047; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:31:00 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000120222630.01919150@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:30:37 -0700 To: Matthew Dillon From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: stream.c worst-case kernel paths Cc: Alfred Perlstein , security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200001210521.VAA56412@apollo.backplane.com> References: <4.2.2.20000120182425.01886ec0@localhost> <20000120195257.G14030@fw.wintelcom.net> <4.2.2.20000120220649.018faa80@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 10:21 PM 1/20/2000 , Matthew Dillon wrote: > I think it's a bad idea to make anything that breaks the protocol > standard the default. I see your point. But isn't it really the protocol standard that's broken? It might be worthwhile to set a de facto standard as part of the process of moving for change in the formal one. (Extensions and changes to IETF standards frequently happen this way.) If people at the IETF meetings say, "FreeBSD now handles this situation this way, and it's MUCH more robust," it'll be a strong selling point in favor of a follow-on RFC. This has worked for e-mail standards, which Heaven knows are STILL in need of enhancement. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message