>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eliot> Sam, I got involved recently because both chairs asked me
Eliot> to submit a draft to revise 3195 to reflect the work of
Eliot> -protocol-19. I have done so. And so perhaps you can help
Eliot> me.
I'll try!
Eliot> The charter calls for a secure transport. The milestones
Eliot> say TLS (something that could easily be changed without
Eliot> community review, mind you).
Hmm. I thought that was in the text of the charter, but you're
correct that it is not. It was circulated to the community though
with the charter text. I agree it would not require community review
to change, although it would be revisiting a WG decision.
Eliot> A reasonable person could
Eliot> believe that perhaps we might actually *build* on the work
Eliot> that was already done with SYSLOG/BEEP/TLS. As I'm
Eliot> relatively new to the party, I'll accept a pointer to the
Eliot> logic of the choice. There being an IPR claim against the
Eliot> new work, and the fact that multiple interoperable
Eliot> implementations of a proposed standard that could easily go
Eliot> to draft exist, I am hoping that pointer explains why this
Eliot> group is has put aside both interoperability and basic
Eliot> engineering principles of reuse.
I'd recommend asking the chairs here. It's there job to call
consensus and to the extent that there is consensus on reasons for
decisions (not just the decisions themselves) to be able to explain
that.
I think that the implementers said they would implement syslog-tls,
but not something 3195-based. But I was not heavily involved in that
discussion other than to make sure it took place.
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
