Re: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES

["Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[e-mail]>]

I think DCCP features isn't really much clearer.  Perhaps the following
would be better,

"Implementations of this specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and
MUST support the DTLS over
 DCCP [RFC5238] CCIDs and service name specified in this document."

This still seems to mandate a DCCP implementation to be compliant with
the spec.    



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:22 PM
> To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Chris Lonvick (clonvick);
[e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES
> 
> How about
> 
>  "Implementations of this
>     specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and MUST support the DTLS
> over
>     DCCP [RFC5238] features of this specification."
> 
> I'm not sure what else is necessary, but there are only two DCCP
> things mentioned in this spec - the CCIDs and SYSL service name. The
> CCID text is already written using RFC2119 language.
> 
> dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 12:39 PM
> > To: David Harrington; Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES
> >
> > What text would you suggest?
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Harrington [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:46 AM
> > > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Chris Lonvick (clonvick);
> > [e-mail]
> > > 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: [e-mail]
> > > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey
> > > > (jsalowey)
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 1:09 AM
> > > > To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [e-mail]
> > > > 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
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
> > > >
> >