|
FWIW: You're asking for 10,000 page specifications and 10MB protocol implementations that are vulnerable to attack.What the specification leaves open, implementations should respect and honor as allowed.This is exactly the point where our opinions differ. My point of view is that specification should clearly define extension points and implementations should: a) Use Postel's principle within defined 'extension' points. b) Treat any deviation from documented protocol (including non-defined aspects of protocol outside of extension points) as an error. I would encourage them to read Shannon/Weaver as well.Nice set of reasons for being strict when receiving messages is described in the following article: "A Patch for Postel's Robustness Principle", Len Sassaman, Meredith L. Patterson, Sergey Bratus, 2012 IEEE S&P Journal, http://langsec.org/papers/postel-patch.pdf Joe |