Chris Lonvick
Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:47:33 -0700
Hi Juergen,Good question. ..and not something that we'll be able to answer in our WG. I'll bring it up in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
Thanks, Chris On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 07:56:39AM -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote:We used to recommend discard only for case B (when it is present and wrong) like this: "It is RECOMMENDED that syslog receivers check the checksums whenever they are present (i.e. the UDP header checksum field value is not 0) and discard messages with incorrect checksums. " I suggest we say something stronger in line with a MUST: syslog senders MUST use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv4. syslog senders MUST use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv6. syslog receivers MUST check the checksums and MUST discard messages with missing or incorrect checksums. Note that this is typically accomplished by the UDP layer implementation, and some UDP implementations allow for checksum validation to be enabled or disabled.Stupid question: Why is UDP checksumming discussed at all in the SYSLOG UDP transport mapping? People implementing syslog hardly have control over the UDP layer (and for sure not exclusively) and so if at all it only makes sense to me to have operational guidelines that UDP checksums are a good idea - but then again this would not be very much SYSLOG specific - so why discuss this at all in this document? Do we from now on want to have every UDP transport document state that UDP checksums are a good idea? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog