Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #267826

Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

From Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)
Date 2024-02-25 13:00 +0100
Message-ID <IblkJ-cwwu-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <Ib0SZ-cjYO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Ib3xv-clm9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <Ib7Ut-codg-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <IbaSl-cqaY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <IbkRH-cwlS-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization Devrandom.pl

Show all headers | View raw

Dnia 2024-02-25, o godz. 11:22:50
Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> napisał(a):

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 07:44:44PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
> > wrote:  
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades
> > > walking back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that
> > > being liberal in what our software accepts is untenable in the
> > > face of a hostile Internet.  
> > 
> > ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the
> > 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today.
> > 
> > Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to
> > reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly
> > perform the processing or transformation.  
> 
> There is a difference between not doing validation (eg a field being
> numeric) and flexibility (eg a line length being 100 bytes which is
> more than the specified 80 bytes). This is what Postel is talking
> about.

...and how you would even handle it ? The DB field is 80 characters, do
you want to just truncate it ? Or oversize the DB? what if DB field
have that 100 bytes but someone sends 101? 

If the numeric field can be hex,dec,oct number or a string representing
one of those (octal representation in particular is satan that claimed
bugs in many projects), together with locale-specific dots dashes and
commas separating thousands, that's plenty of code that can go wrong vs
"okay this number is in range, job done"

Yes of course there is a diffence between validation and flexibility but
flexibility of protocol should only extend to backward compability, where 
it doesn't cost you too much, and not indefinitely. Not to be flexible
just so someone can half-ass the implementation and still have it
"work" because other servers cover up for the errors with being
"flexible".

There is a case for leeway in user-facing stuff - nobody wants to hunt
for trailing whitespace in their forms just because they dared to
copy-paste - but protocols had way too much leeway *because* most
implementations ignored the second part, "be conservative in what you
do" and frankly sent fucked up stuff that your implementation still 
needed to work with if it was a common open protocol.

e-mail being particular example, oh the hundreds of problems with "our" 
mail servers that could be summed up by "your implementation pisses on
RFC and that's why our mail server doesn't get your mail"... 



-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com>
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-22 11:40 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 07:10 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 10:50 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 11:00 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-23 11:20 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:30 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 19:30 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-14 19:30 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 01:50 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-03-15 09:50 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 17:10 +0100
              Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-03-15 17:20 +0100
              Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:40 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:30 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Will Mengarini <seldon@eskimo.com> - 2024-03-15 19:20 +0100
            Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be  a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-03-15 20:00 +0100
              Re: Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to  be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for  network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 23:30 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 21:50 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> - 2024-02-23 12:50 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 13:20 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 13:40 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2024-02-25 00:20 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:30 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:50 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> - 2024-02-23 11:50 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:40 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 17:30 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-02-23 19:10 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Gremlin <scott-andrews@columbus.rr.com> - 2024-02-23 19:20 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 21:00 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 20:00 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 12:30 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 12:40 +0100
              Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 14:50 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-24 15:10 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-24 18:00 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-24 19:40 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:20 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-25 10:30 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 10:40 +0100
                Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 10:50 +0100
                Re: Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 13:20 +0100
                Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 22:40 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 01:50 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:10 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-25 12:30 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 13:00 +0100
                Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of  master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 02:00 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-14 18:00 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-24 21:50 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-25 00:30 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 00:50 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:40 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-02-23 16:00 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:50 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 22:20 +0100
          Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 03:40 +0100
            Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 04:00 +0100
              Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
                Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
    Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
      Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:30 +0100
        Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-02-23 22:40 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100

csiph-web