Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302

Hi Mohamed,

Thanks for your mail.

I agree with you. 

The only reason I put these sections in here was because the IESG conflict review indicated a conflict between this document and the other two RFCs mentioned (Ref: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-daveor-cgn-logging/). In an effort to reconcile the feedback received with the content of draft-daveor-cgn-logging, I added these sections. 

Perfectly happy to remove them if that is the way the consensus emerges.

daveor

> On 5 Apr 2018, at 15:24, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave, 
> 
> I have a comment about the proposed update to RFC 6269 (the same comment applies for RFC6302, though). 
> 
> Actually, the proposed NEW text will require an extra effort to align timestamps among the server which maintains the logs, the authorities that relay an abuse claim, and the provider who manages the CGN. That extra effort has to be done by the entity managing the log server. 
> 
> From that standpoint, the proposed NEW text is no more than another example of "Accurate time-keeping"...which IMHO does not justify an update to the 6269. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Dave O'Reilly
>> Envoyé : mercredi 4 avril 2018 22:26
>> À : int-area@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Further to my email below, I have revised draft-daveor-cgn-logging and
>> revision -03 is now available. I have restructured the content into the form
>> of recommendations.
>> 
>> Here’s the link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daveor-cgn-logging-03
>> 
>> I have also included, at sections 7.6 and 7.7, proposed amendments to RFC6302
>> and RFC6269 respectively.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> daveor
>> 
>>> On 20 Mar 2018, at 13:45, Dave O'Reilly <rfc@daveor.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> further to presenting at IETF-101 yesterday I wanted to send a follow up
>> email to see if there is interest in working on a new best current practice
>> for logging at internet-facing servers.
>>> 
>>> I hope I adequately presented the reasons why I think there needs to be
>> some revision of the recommendations of RFC6302 and that there is some
>> additional points to be considered in draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02.
>>> 
>>> The current version of the document (draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02) contains
>> recommendations, but it is not really in the form of a BCP. If there is
>> interest, I would like to suggest, in the first instance at least, that I
>> prepare a new version of the document, structured in the form of a BCP with a
>> set of recommendations for discussion.
>>> 
>>> Any feedback would be appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>> daveor
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Int-area mailing list
>>> Int-area@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> Int-area@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area