>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eliot> And that leads to my other question. Why are we
Eliot> implementing a separate TLS protocol when 3195 and its
Eliot> successor both exists and has been implemented? That seems
Eliot> to me rather redundant, and violates a tenant that we
Eliot> really should observe more: don't reinvent the wheel.
Eliot, at this point we're doing TLS because we're chartered to do it.
There was a long discussion within the WG about what direction to
take. I don't know if you participated in that discussion but you
were certainly welcome to have done so. That discussion resulted in a
charter which explicitly called out TLS. That charter was sent out
for IETF wide review with additional text specifically calling
attention to the fact that this charter needed extra review.
Again, you were welcome to read that charter and comment on it.
I do think the question of why we're doing TLS has some good answers
in the WG archive. You may not agree with them, but they are there in
the archive for you to explore.
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
