At 04:32 PM 8/21/00 -0700, Jon Callas wrote:
>There are a couple of things I'd like to add to this discussion.
>
>As I read our proposed charter, what we're trying to do in it is to scope the working
>group -- that is to say, describe the problem we're trying to solve rather than come
>up with a solution. It may very well end up that IPsec is the solution, but we should
>talk about the problem before we come up with a solution.
Hi Jon,
Perhaps the charter doesn't contain the best wording. The first ID is to
describe the observed syslog protocol and to also document the problems.
The second and third IDs are to present solutions to these problems - as
described in the 3rd paragraph of the charter. The second ID, which Alex
Brown has presented to the list, must address some of the problems with
authentication. It may maintain the scalability that we associate with
the current syslog implementation through the use of udp. The third ID
should address all of the problems and have verifiable delivery.
Your quick description of the problems is right on. I think that I've
captured those and some others in the draft here:
http://www.employees.org/~lonvick/draft4.txt
The work to still be done is:
- review the draft and finish the technical bits for the first ID.
- review Alex's draft and provide him feedback so we can submit that.
- I'm still looking for someone to submit a proposal for the third ID
that can accomplish authenticated event messages with verifiable
delivery. (I've hinted that the use of BEEP may be appropriate to
accomplish the authentication, flow integrity and confidentiality
so that all is needed above that may be receipt acknowledgement.)
Many thanks,
Chris
