Re: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES

It doesn't. And you can be explicit about that if you want.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:jsalowey@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 6:26 PM
> To: David Harrington; Chris Lonvick (clonvick); syslog@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES
> 
> 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:ietfdbh@comcast.net]
> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:22 PM
> > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Chris Lonvick (clonvick);
> syslog@ietf.org
> > 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:jsalowey@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 12:39 PM
> > > To: David Harrington; Chris Lonvick (clonvick); syslog@ietf.org
> > > Subject: 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
> > > > >
> > >
> 