[Syslog] Issue 13 - DCCP?

Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com> Mon, 07 June 2010 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <clonvick@cisco.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 979B428C103 for <syslog@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.025
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.025 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.375, BAYES_40=-0.185, FRT_STRONG2=1.535, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 x9ux-ZOhXcsY for <syslog@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BAD28C757 for <syslog@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsoGAP6qDEyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACSLQEBjBhxpGGaAoUXBINK
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,378,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="140533987"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2010 15:21:22 +0000
Received: from sjc-cde-011.cisco.com (sjc-cde-011.cisco.com [171.69.16.68]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o57FLMDS027626 for <syslog@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:21:22 GMT
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:21:21 -0700
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: syslog@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1006070812100.27400@sjc-cde-011.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Subject: [Syslog] Issue 13 - DCCP?
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: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:23:27 -0000

Issue 13 - DCCP?

Tom Petch wrote:
vvv
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.
^^^

DBH responded:
vvv
Lars provided advice quite a while back. I concur with his advice.

Implementers MUST implement support for DCCP (which should require
minimal changes from support for UDP),
so that if DCCP is available, and the operator chooses to use DCCPP,
the implementation will work with DCCP.

I view this as very similar to our standard security posture - stroing
security is MUST implement, so it is available if the operator wants
it. The operator is not required to use it.
^^^

ACTION:  None - I think this is resolved.