-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02.11.2012 04:23, Guy Harris wrote:
>> Is it legal to have a pcap-ng file that contains a block with
>> options that does not contain an opt_endofopt option?
>
> My inclination would be to say "yes", to indicate that option
> processing must stop when you reach the end of the block even if no
> opt_endofopt option is seen, but also indicate that option
> processing should stop when an opt_endofopt block is seen, even if
> there is more data remaining in the block. So my inclination would
> be to say:
>
> option processing MUST stop when you run out of data in the block;
>
> option processing MUST stop when you see an opt_endofopt block;
>
> option lists that contain at least one non-opt_endofopt option
> SHOULD also have an opt_endofopt option at the end;
>
> and possibly change the last SHOULD to MUST in order not to upset
> code that *doesn't* check for the end of the block, even if that
> code is insecure.
I agree. The opt_endofopt is a nice-to-have in my eyes, because - as
Guy said - you need to check that your code is not running past the
end of a block anyway, and that requires keeping track of where you are.
I think we can go for a "MUST" on the last one as well; code that
reads pcap-ng still has to expect that there is no opt_endofopt
because of the first rule.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQk8fgAAoJELMLD8F06bDgD7MH/AsYbtcrMRGuk6rtG8uCcgjd
8sMzkCYuDQGuiBDCciCxCri/FFPdAx8Vm1U3R7Eu8ANfgcQRRDh2bhcWwTUMM/i/
QJ1BCtF1I3cfgg2+Lt0n1gotkQ8NUg9T+Tv5zYxESR8CvjvCHj1m5CFnZzDOiVex
7kZgbv2sP3rnZVWpBxhEPyPx5dbNzZgIfIQD4DzBo30+tspIBUmWUqLT4fKXWl/G
I+Gldeoepyv/tYbXkRk6vqmoF2uUX1Nhd5vBuD1R3f+hLMF6l7gT3H+NYFkmtdH/
38p/udIsZHXFC5H2txvsUBSJGi1Wxs/XznrATwRIwusPLGmz81VFLpsqiegMMWc=
=bkYP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
