Re: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES

What text would you suggest?  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:46 AM
> To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Chris Lonvick (clonvick);
syslog@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The proposed text is:
> "Implementations of this
>    specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and MUST support DTLS over
>    DCCP [RFC5238] if the DCCP transport is available at run-time."
> 
> So if I am an implementer, and I have no idea whether my customers
> will have DCCP available at runtime, MUST I implement those
> DCCP-related things that are specified in this document?
> 
> Even if I see no customer demand for DCCP, and assume it will NOT be
> available at runtime, MUST my implementation support the service code
> SYLG?
> 
> If I don't implement support for this, and the customer DOES NOT have
> DCCP at runtime, is my implementation compliant to this spec?
> 
> If I don't implement support for this, and the customer DOES have DCCP
> at runtime, is my implementation still compliant to this spec?
> 
> dbh
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: syslog-bounces@ietf.org
> > [mailto:syslog-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey
> > (jsalowey)
> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 1:09 AM
> > To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); syslog@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES
> >
> > Most of this looks pretty straight forward:
> > > Issue 8 - Tim Polk DISCUSS
> > > STATUS: Discussed by Tom and David.  Joe to incorporate changes.
> > >
> > [Joe] For this one I have Section 5 as:
> >
> > "Implementations of this
> >    specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and MUST support DTLS
> over
> >    DCCP [RFC5238] if the DCCP transport is available at run-time."
> >
> > And section 6 as:
> >
> > " DCCP has congestion control.  For this reason, when DCCP is
> >    available, the syslog over DTLS over DCCP option is RECOMMENDED
> in
> >    preference to the syslog over the DTLS over UDP option."
> >
> > I'm think the RECOMMENDED in the section 6 needs to be
> > replaced with something else, I'm not quite sure what.
> >
> > > Issue 9, 9a, and 9b - from a Tim Polk COMMENT
> > > STATUS:  It looks like 9 and 9a have been discussed and Tom has
> > proposed
> > > text to resolve them.  Sean proposed text on 9b.  I'd like some
> > discussion
> > > on that.
> > >
> > [Joe] I'm not sure 9b is necessary, but I don't think it causes
> harm.
> > I'd modify the text to say " implementations often generate
> > their own key pairs" since its possible for the generation to
> > be done outside the implementation.
> >
> > > Issue 10 - Jari Arrko DISCUSS
> > > STATUS: Same as Issue 1.  Is the text proposed by Sean good to
> cover
> > all
> > > of this Issue, Issue 1 and Issue 2?
> > >
> > [Joe] I incorporated the text, I'm not sure it covers all the
> > issues, I think Tom initiated some discussion on the TLS
> > list, but  I don't think it changes the result.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Syslog mailing list
> > Syslog@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
> >