Hi Sam,
We believe the syslog-sign document is ready for AD review and
consideration for advancement to Proposed Standard.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
shepherding submission for syslog-sign
Having passed a WG Last Call, and been updated to meet the comments
from the WGLC, draft-ietf-syslog-sign-23.txt is ready for AD review.
[Area] SECURITY
[WG] syslog
[I-D] draft-ietf-syslog-sign-23.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07.txt
[Shep] David Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The WG last call turned up no major comments or discussion.
1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of
the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this
ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication?
Yes.
1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG
members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Adequate review has occurred from WG members, and it has been
reviewed by others. I am satisfied about the level of review.
1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more
review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security,
operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
No.
1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this
document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For
example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it.
In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
No.
1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?
There is strong consensus to publish this document.
1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email to the Responsible Area Director.
No.
1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres
to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
Yes.
1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative
references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are
not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
(note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)
The references are split into normative and informational
references.
The document has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-23.txt
and draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-12.txt, which have been approved, and on
draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-10.txt which has not yet been approved.
1.ijk) Write-up section:
* Technical Summary
This document describes a mechanism to add origin authentication,
message integrity, replay resistance, message sequencing, and
detection of missing messages to the transmitted syslog messages.
This specification is intended to be used in conjunction with the
work defined in RFC xxxx, "The syslog Protocol".
* Working Group Summary
The consensus of the working group was to publish this as a
standards-track document.
* Protocol Quality
It is possible that there are implementations of this document in
various stages of completion at this time. Some equipment
vendors have indicated interest in supporting this document, and some
non-commercial implementations are also expected.
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
