> > I think the cleanest approach is to put the transport into a separate > > RFC and publish the UDP mapping concurrently with -protocol. However, > > considering that the whole transport description for UDP is just "use > > port 514", I am not sure if the WG wants to go with the overhead of > > extra RFC instead of just adding a section to -protocol. > > Personally, I > > don't mind a one page RFC. And I think most security issues > > needs to be > > moved to transport layer. > > I am in strong favour of a separate RFC, even though it is a pretty > short one (I doubt it will be short in respect to security > considerations ;)). But it will keep things cleanly separated. However, > I see that once we really require a transport (UDP), that it may only > complicate things. So I am not feeling as strong about a seperate RFC as > I did some days ago. I am still in favour of it, but things like "this > complicates the RFC process" may outweigh this concern.
certainly it is worthwhile to have a separate rfc, because that will allow you to focus on explaining the security implications of that choice. (and when datagram tls shows up later this year, you can make reference to that as well...) /mtr
