Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls

Hi all,

sorry I was offline a long time for good, but not to mention here, reason. I
will unfortunately be very partly available in the next few days. But I would
at least like to back Tom's argument. Bit first let me admit that I could not
follow the whole discussion, so I may have missed a point that actually
demands a MUST. Out of the context of Tom's posting, I don't think so.

In practice, there are some applications that require more than 16KB within a
single message, namely IHE and maybe some other applications that log
application-data rather than system management data. In RFC5424, we thought
we have a good compromise by specifying a not-too-large to be supported size
but did not set an upper limit. This was done in the spirit that transports
should not impose any limits except if absolutely necessary.

So if dtls can work with 64K (and my understanding is it can), we should
permit it to use this max size. If that comes, for example, at the cost of
fragmentation and potential message loss, so be it for those applications
that need this functionality. After all, folks have been warnend (RFC5424),
but we should not limit those in need AND ready to accept the extra risk.

Speaking as an implementer, I know for sure that if some large-enough
customer approaches us to support 64K messages, we will definitely do that,
if it is possible. I guess the same is true for other implementers. If the
customer needs it and wants to pay for it, one will implement it -- then as a
private extension of the standard. So looking at the real world, removing
that ability from the standard will not result in removing the capability.
The only thing that it will potentially remove is interoperability of
different implementations that do it anyways...

My 2cts, and once again my apologies for not being able to follow more
timely.

Rainer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: syslog-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:syslog-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of t.petch
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 6:38 PM
> To: jsalowey@cisco.com; Chris Lonvick
> Cc: syslog
> Subject: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls
> 
> I see that this I-D had entered 'Revised I-D needed' which I would like
> to
> progress.
> 
> I see several comments about maximum record size, including a
> suggestion that we
> should make the 'SHOULD NOT' a 'MUST NOT' exceed 2**14.
> 
> I am dead set against this change.  We had a clear requirment, early
> on, to
> allow 65k messages, and I think it wrong to MUST NOT that requirement.
> The text
> in the other I-Ds is a compromise to strke a balance between this and
> having
> everything fit in 576 byte; I think we have the balance right.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> Syslog@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog