On Oct 11, 2010 at 19:01, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> On 10/7/10 12:16 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
> >On Oct 07, 2010 at 10:57, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
>
> >There's a bit of a misunderstanding here.
> ...
> >Now consider an authenticated message that is retransmitted: the first
> > message will pass
inline
On 10/7/10 11:11 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 10/07/2010 04:57 AM, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
The problem is that "somewhat increased" can be A LOT. transaction
context is in order of kilobytes and creating transaction context
on every single request can exhaust memory very very quickly.
It is n
On 10/7/10 12:16 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Oct 07, 2010 at 10:57, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
There's a bit of a misunderstanding here.
...
Now consider an authenticated message that is retransmitted: the first
message will pass authentication, but it's retransmission will fail =>
I
On Oct 07, 2010 at 10:57, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> On 10/7/10 10:42 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
> >Now that K v3.1.0 provides send_reply(), what is the preferred ideology
> >about whether to send stateful or stateless negative error replies?
> >
> >I mean in general, not in specific cases like digest au
On 10/07/2010 04:57 AM, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
The problem is that "somewhat increased" can be A LOT. transaction
context is in order of kilobytes and creating transaction context
on every single request can exhaust memory very very quickly.
It is not just about evil attacks but also about resilienc
On 10/7/10 10:42 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Now that K v3.1.0 provides send_reply(), what is the preferred ideology about
whether to send stateful or stateless negative error replies?
I mean in general, not in specific cases like digest authentication in the new
'auth' module, where, according t
