Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH 3/3] virtio-crypto: fix missing verb

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jul 26 2021, Gaetan Harter <gaetan.harter@opensynergy.com> wrote:

> The condition was incomplete "guarantee the size IS within the max_len".
>
> Signed-off-by: Gaetan Harter <gaetan.harter@opensynergy.com>
> ---
>  virtio-crypto.tex | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virtio-crypto.tex b/virtio-crypto.tex
> index 4a15e14..0d1d832 100644
> --- a/virtio-crypto.tex
> +++ b/virtio-crypto.tex
> @@ -275,13 +275,13 @@ \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device
>  \item The driver MUST read the detailed algorithms fields based on \field{crypto_services} field.
>  \item The driver SHOULD read \field{max_size} to discover the maximum size of the variable-length
>      parameters of data operation of the crypto request's content the device supports and MUST
> -    guarantee the size of each crypto request's content within the \field{max_size}, otherwise
> +    guarantee the size of each crypto request's content is within the \field{max_size}, otherwise
>      the request will fail and the driver MUST reset the device.
>  \item The driver SHOULD read \field{max_cipher_key_len} to discover the maximum length of cipher key
> -    the device supports and MUST guarantee the \field{key_len} (CIPHER service or AEAD service) within
> +    the device supports and MUST guarantee the \field{key_len} (CIPHER service or AEAD service) is within
>      the \field{max_cipher_key_len} of the device configuration, otherwise the request will fail.
>  \item The driver SHOULD read \field{max_auth_key_len} to discover the maximum length of authenticated
> -    key the device supports and MUST guarantee the \field{auth_key_len} (MAC service) within the
> +    key the device supports and MUST guarantee the \field{auth_key_len} (MAC service) is within the
>      \field{max_auth_key_len} of the device configuration, otherwise the request will fail.
>  \end{itemize*}

This still seems a bit awkward. I'd make that either "MUST guarantee
(...) to be within (...)", or "MUST guarantee that (...) is within
(...)". What do you think?