[security-services] the "unbounded" issue

[RL 'Bob' Morgan <rlmorgan@washington.edu>]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Stephen Farrell wrote:

  - Why allow "unbounded" anywhere? I see no reason why 10000000000
  statements MUST be supported, which is what seems to be implied. Suggest
  including a max value that implementations MUST support, to be the same
  for all cases of "unbounded". Either incorporate this into the schema
  (e.g. "maxOccurs=1000") or into text (considering how versioning is
  currently done).

I'm no schema expert, but it seems to me that putting something like
"maxOccurs=1000" into the schema isn't the right thing, since it makes
sending 1001 of something invalid, where what we want to say is just that
it's not guaranteed to be interoperable.

I agree with the sentiment, but the stating of "must handle at least N"
seems to me to be much more appropriate for the conformance document,
though I have to say I can't quite see where it would go in the current
doc.  But it would be necessary, I think, for conformance tests to include
handling multiple instances of all the possibly-multiple items up to the
stated limits.

So, I believe this is an Issue that needs to be resolved one way or
another.

 - RL "Bob"