[Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls - DCCP and UDP
"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Sat, 22 May 2010 17:48 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: syslog@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: syslog@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0279B3A6D63 for <syslog@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 May 2010 10:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.806
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.807, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z2TGDzmVzonU for <syslog@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 May 2010 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c2beaomr01.btconnect.com (c2beaomr01.btconnect.com [213.123.26.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87FF3A6D65 for <syslog@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 May 2010 10:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pc6 (host86-172-78-59.range86-172.btcentralplus.com [86.172.78.59]) by c2beaomr01.btconnect.com with SMTP id FFE57669; Sat, 22 May 2010 18:47:41 +0100 (BST)
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=0001.0A0B0302.4BF818BD.00DA, actions=tag
Message-ID: <002f01caf9ce$1c28de20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: jsalowey@cisco.com, Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 18:43:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr01.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4BF818CA.01FF, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2009-07-20 21:54:04, dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27, mode=single engine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: syslog <syslog@ietf.org>
Subject: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls - DCCP and UDP
X-BeenThere: syslog@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Issues in Network Event Logging <syslog.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>, <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog>
List-Post: <mailto:syslog@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>, <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 17:48:08 -0000
Another issue that came up from the IESG is the relative roles of UDP and DCCP as a substrate. In this context, the discussions on tsvwg which Lars is steering about SCTP, DCCP and UDP make interesting reading, with some contributors asserting that the only way to get a packet through a complex network is with UDP, that SCTP and DCCP are (comparative) failures that just don't get recognised widely enough. Certainly my (limited) view is that UDP is the MUST HAVE, the one that will give maximum interoperability so while DCCP is technically superior, making it the MUST implement will simply cause this I-D to be ignored by most. I haven't seen any response from Lars on this issue. Tom Petch
- [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-iet… t.petch
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… David Harrington
- Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft… David Harrington