> -Original Message-
> From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:44 PM
> To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); 'Rainer Gerhards'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] IESG secure transport requirement can
> be quicklysolved...
>
> Hi,
>
> [
Hi Darren,
[posting as a contributor]
I don't know GSSAPI or SASL well enough to evaluate their
approriateness for securing syslog.
Are you willing to write one or two drafts proposing these as possible
solutions so the WG can evaluate them as alternatives?
[posting as a contributor]
David Harr
Hi Rainer,
The deadline for a -00- draft has just passed, so you won't be able to
publish officially until after Montreal. I recommend posting the draft
to the mailing list for discussion, as a non-WG draft.
By the time the I-D publication process re-opens after montreal, the
WG can decide wheth
I am not sure RFC 3195 is completely market-abandoned. Cisco has some interest
in it. Although I cannot comment on any product roadmaps.
Anton.
> -Original Message-
> From: Miao Fuyou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:49 AM
> To: 'David Harrington'; 'Rainer G
Hi Folks,
I've got lots in my inbox that I can't catch up to this week but this
caught my eye. I have not received anything back from Huawei about the
specific claim, but according to RFC 3979 they don't have to.
Thanks,
Chris
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 1
David,
Your actions as co-chair of this group represent a conflict of interest
for so long as Huawei maintains it has an intellectual property claim
with respect to its work. I would request that you either step down as
co-chair of the group, cease employment with Huawei or convince Huawei
to cea
David, WG,
> -Original Message-
> From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
> It is important that we make progress and not just discuss the
> alternatives, ad infinitum, however. We need volunteers who are
> willing to put in the work to write viable internet-drafts and d
David,
> Hi,
>
> [Posting as a contributor]
>
> I am involved in a number of NM and Security WGs, and I can make these
> observations:
>
> Running an NM protocol over SSH has been done in both netconf and
> ISMS. I suspect it would be fairly easy to adapt the netconf-over-SSH
> draft to work fo
Tom:
[big snip]
> You may recall we have had discussions of length v end of
> record marker before
> (and yes, I do like end of record markers:-)
I see your concerns and think they are valid. I have argued for using a
length in the header instead of an end of record marker. But this is
differe
Hi Darren,
I don't know them well enough to comment.
Are you willing to write one or two drafts proposing these as possible
solutions so the WG can evaluate them as alternatives?
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL
An advantage of TLS over SSH that is not technical in nature is that
TLS/SSL is already found in very low end devices as it is used for other
purposes. Utilizing it is far better than requiring that these devices
now take on the additional SSH (or other) protocols. SSH tends not to be
as widely dep
Tom,
I have to admit I have overlooked this item. I agree that we (especially
me) were very TLS-minded. My memories tell me we intentionally left the
door open for other transports, but I may be wrong. As it looks, I need
to re-visit the mailing list archive. I hope I will be able to do so
soon.
Hi all,
once again some news. I have contacted the ffii.org, which nobody can
claim to be patent-friendly. This is the essential part of their reply:
___
On the one hand this is indeed a very good example of how software
patent
Rainer
Looking at the outstanding milestones, I see
Nov 2006Submit Syslog UDP Transport Mapping to the IESG for consideration as
a PROPOSED STANDARD
Nov 2006Submit Syslog Protocol to the IESG for consideration as a PROPOSED
STANDARD
Nov 2006Submit Syslog TLS Transport Mapping to the I
Hi all,
I think I have some good news. Huawei has updated its IPR disclosure.
Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=724
The license has dramatically been changed:
**
If technology in this document is included in a standard adopted by IETF
and anyc
- Original Message -
From: "Anton Okmianski (aokmians)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
Tom:
I think these are valid concerns. They span different layers:
1. If
Miao Fuyou wrote:
real "general" security mechanisms(except IPsec, but it is not
application-friendly). So, IMHO the primary criteria for selection is: is it
convenient for the application to invoke the security service provided by
the security protocol?
That to me sounds like GSSAPI or SASL.
Tom,
> But, in all seriousness, changing from TLS to anything is a
> charter change that
> I think needs the approval of the IESG, and should require
> commitment, similar
> to that given at the turn of the year, to produce conformant products.
I do not agree here. We have deliberately not used
David
You will know, and the archives show, that I spent much time in 2005 arguing for
SSH as the transport for isms and, happily, the WG agreed. The archives also
show that my efforts in syslog were to no avail and the WG overwhelmingly chose
TLS. The argument in favour was the marketing one -
Miao,
technically, I agree with you. HOWEVER, I need to point out that your
company is the root cause of the problem. The IPR rights claimed on your
transport-tls document have taken it hostage. Even though the licensing
terms seem reasonable (which needs to be prooven in undisclosed detail),
ther
Darren,
I think we have been through this. I see your point and I agree that the
IPR action is, well, unfortunate ;) [I had some stronger words in
previous posts and still fully support them] I also understand and to
some extent support the position that there is some personal liability
of a high-
21 matches
Mail list logo
